Water Resources Yield Assesment Report

WATER RESOURCES
YIELD ASSESSMENT REPORT
NOVEMBER 2021
Prepared By:
G&P DAMS & WATER SERVICES SDN.BHD.

23-5, Jalan Tasik Selatan 3,
Bandar Tasik Selatan,
57000 Kuala Lumpur.
KAJIAN DAN PEMBANGUNAN Tel : 603 - 9056 5475
Fax : 603 - 9056 5499
GARIS PANDUAN Email: gnp-dnw@gnpgroup.com.my
PELAN KESELAMATAN AIR Website: www.gnpgroup.com.my
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara
Water Resources Yield Assessment Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. ES-1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Study Objectives ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Scope of Works ....................................................................................................... 1-1
CHAPTER 2 YIELD ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Data Collected for the Study .................................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 2-7
2.4 Yield Assessment .................................................................................................. 2-22
2.4.1 Yield Assessment using Hydrological Procedure No. 12 (HP 12) ......................... 2-22
2.4.2 Yield Assessment using Low Flow Frequency Analysis ........................................ 2-33
2.4.3 Yield Assessment based on Review of Previous Studies Report ......................... 2-37
2.4.3.1 Sg Perlis Basin – IRBM Sg Perlis (JPS, 2010), NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and
Additional Analysis ................................................................................................. 2-38
2.4.3.2 Sg Kedah Basin – NAWABS Sg Kedah (JPS, 2019/2020).................................... 2-38
2.4.3.3 Sg Melaka Basin (Langkawi) – NWRS 2011 and Additional Analysis ................... 2-41
2.4.3.4 Sg Muda Basin – NAWABS Sg Muda (JPS, 2018/2019) and Additional

Analysis.................................................................................................................. 2-44
2.4.3.5 Sg Tk. Bahang Basin – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional Analysis ........... 2-49
2.4.3.6 Sg Dondang Basin – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional Analysis .............. 2-49
2.4.3.7 Sg Perak Basin – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional Analysis .................... 2-50
2.4.3.8 Sg Kurau Basin and Sg Kerian Basin – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional
Analysis.................................................................................................................. 2-52
2.4.3.9 Sg Bernam Basin – NAWABS Sg Bernam (JPS, 2020) ........................................ 2-52
2.4.3.10 Sg Selangor Basin – IRBM Sg Selangor (LUAS, 2014) and Additional Analysis .. 2-54
2.4.3.11 Sg Klang Basin – IRBM Sg Klang (LUAS, 2016) and Development of Batu Dam
Operating Rule Curve (Air Selangor, 2019) ........................................................... 2-59
2.4.3.12 Sg Buloh Basin – IRBM Sg Klang (LUAS, 2016) ................................................... 2-64
i
Suruhanjaya Pe
2.4.3.13 Sg Langat Basin – IRBM Sg Langat study (LUAS, 2015), Semenyih Dam Storage
Prediction Model (Konsortium ABASS Sdn Bhd 2015), NWRS (2011) and
Additional Analysis ................................................................................................ 2-66
2.4.3.14 Sg Pahang Basin – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional Analysis ................ 2-76
2.4.3.15 Sg Kuantan Basin – IRBM Sg Kuantan (JPS, 2018) and Additional Analysis ...... 2-78
2.4.3.16 Sg Pontian Basin (Pahang) – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) ....................................... 2-80
2.4.3.17 Sg Linggi Basin – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional Analysis ................... 2-81
2.4.3.18 Sg Muar Basin – Kajian Sumber Air Negeri Johor (2010-2060) (BAKAJ, 2015)
(termed as KSANJ 2015) and Additional Analysis ................................................ 2-85
2.4.3.19 Sg Johor Basin - Draft Concept Design Report of Projek Pembangunan Off-River-
Storage (ORS) Sg Johor (BBA, 2020) (termed as Sg Johor ORS), Kajian Sumber
Air Negeri Johor (2010-2060) (BAKAJ, 2015) (termed as KSANJ 2015) and
Additional Analysis ................................................................................................ 2-94
2.4.3.20 Sg Batu Pahat Basin – Kajian Sumber Air Negeri Johor (2010-2060) (BAKAJ,
2015) (termed as KSANJ 2015) ............................................................................ 2-99
2.4.3.21 Sg Endau Basin – Kajian Sumber Air Negeri Johor (2010-2060) (BAKAJ, 2015)
(termed as KSANJ 2015), NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional Analysis .... 2-103
2.4.3.22 Sg Benut Basin – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional Analysis ................. 2-106
2.4.3.23 Sg Pulai Basin – Kajian Sumber Air Negeri Johor (2010-2060) (BAKAJ, 2015)
(termed as KSANJ 2015) .................................................................................... 2-106
2.4.3.24 Sg Tenglu Besar Basin – Kajian Sumber Air Negeri Johor (2010-2060) (BAKAJ,
2015) (termed as KSANJ 2015) .......................................................................... 2-108
2.4.3.25 Sg Kesang Basin – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional Analysis .............. 2-109
2.4.3.26 Sg Melaka Basin – NAWABS Sg Melaka (JPS, 2019/2020) and Additional
Analysis ................................................................................................................ 2-110
2.5 Assessment of Intake and Dam Water Level ...................................................... 2-117
2.6 Assessment of Climate Change Impact on Yield ................................................ 2-130
CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 3-1

3.1 Findings and Discussion ......................................................................................... 3-1
CHAPTER 4 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM .................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Approach ................................................................................................................. 4-1
ii
4.2.1 Data Collection and Compilation ............................................................................. 4-2
4.2.2 Data Review and Topology Checking ..................................................................... 4-2
4.2.3 Projection Transformation........................................................................................ 4-2
4.2.4 File GIS Dataset ...................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.5 Field Names ............................................................................................................. 4-5
APPENDIX A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS

APPENDIX B WORKED EXAMPLES OF LOW FLOW FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
iii
Suruhanjaya Pe
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Table 1-1: List of intakes for yield study .............................................................................................. 1-2
CHAPTER 2 YIELD ASSESSMENT

Table 2-1: List of data types and purposes in the Study ..................................................................... 2-2
Table 2-2: Summary of data collection ................................................................................................ 2-3
Table 2-3: Yield estimation method for the intakes in this Study....................................................... 2-13
Table 2-4: Dimensionless growth factors for various L-moment regions .......................................... 2-22
Table 2-5: Summary of yield assessment results using HP 12 (JPS, 2015) ..................................... 2-25
Table 2-6: Summary of yield assessment results using low flow frequency analysis (flow
transposition) ..................................................................................................................................... 2-35
Table 2-7: Summary of yield assessment results using low flow frequency analysis (TM-WBM) .... 2-36
Table 2-8: List of WTPs with insufficient yield from the low flow frequency analysis ........................ 2-37
Table 2-9: Water treatment plants using water from Sg Kedah basin ............................................... 2-39
Table 2-10: Summary of dam yield analysis for 1 in 50-year drought sequence .............................. 2-41
Table 2-11: FDC values for Padang Saga Fasa 3 intake .................................................................. 2-43
Table 2-12: FDC values at Jeniang station ....................................................................................... 2-46
Table 2-13: FDC values at Jam. Syed Omar station ......................................................................... 2-47
Table 2-14: FDC values at Lahar Tiang intake .................................................................................. 2-48
Table 2-15: Yield sufficiency the regulated intakes located in Sg Muda basin ................................. 2-48
Table 2-16: Potable water river abstraction works in the study area of NAWABS Sg Bernam ......... 2-53
Table 2-17: Surplus-deficit of the water intake (POI) catchments under 7Q50 of historical flow series
(1981 to 2016) comparing with the water demand at 2015 .......................................... 2-54
Table 2-18: Details of water treatment plants in Sg Selangor Basin ................................................. 2-55
Table 2-19: FDC Values at Rasa intake ............................................................................................ 2-57
Table 2-20: FDC Values at Rantau Panjang station ......................................................................... 2-58
Table 2-21: FDC values for SSP3 intake........................................................................................... 2-59
Table 2-22: Summary of findings extracted from IRBM Sg Langat study (LUAS, 2015) .................. 2-67
Table 2-23: FDC values for Sg Labu intake ...................................................................................... 2-68
Table 2-24: Derived 7-day low flow of various ARIs at Cheras Mile 11 intake .................................. 2-72
Table 2-25: Derived 7-day low flow of various ARIs at Dengkil station ............................................. 2-74
Table 2-26: FDC values for Semenyih 2 intake ................................................................................. 2-74
Table 2-27: FDC values for Labohan Dagang intake ........................................................................ 2-75
Table 2-28: FDC values for Langat 2 intake ...................................................................................... 2-77
Table 2-29: Water treatment plants in Sg Kuantan Basin ................................................................. 2-79
Table 2-30: Yield for Semambu WTP, Bukit Ubi WTP and Panching WTP intakes.......................... 2-80
Table 2-31: FDC values at Sawah Raja intake ................................................................................. 2-83
Table 2-32: Details of dams in Sg Muar Basin .................................................................................. 2-85
iv
Table 2-33: List of Study intakes in Sg Muar Basin ........................................................................... 2-87

Table 2-34: Detailed yield estimation method adopted for study intakes in Sg Muar Basin ............. 2-87
Table 2-35: FDC values for Palong Timur intake............................................................................... 2-90
Table 2-36: Summary of findings for regulated intakes ..................................................................... 2-93
Table 2-37: Water treatment plants in Sg Johor basin ...................................................................... 2-94
Table 2-38: Run-of-river yield extracted from KSANJ 2015 study ..................................................... 2-96
Table 2-39: Derived 7-day low flow of various ARIs at Bandar Tenggara and Batu 2 intakes .......... 2-97
Table 2-40: Summary of run-of-river yield adopted in this Study (Sg Muar basin) ............................ 2-97
Table 2-41: FDC values at Sg Johor, Semangar and Linggiu WTPs ................................................ 2-98
Table 2-42: 1 in 50-year yield estimated for Pulai Dam system and Gunung Pulai WTP ............... 2-108
Table 2-43: Streamflow stations used for yield assessment ........................................................... 2-113
Table 2-44: Detailed yield estimation method adopted for study in Sg Melaka Basin ..................... 2-113
Table 2-45: FDC values for Gadek intake ....................................................................................... 2-114
Table 2-46: FDC values for Sebukor intake ..................................................................................... 2-115
Table 2-47: Summary of findings from intake and dam water level assessment ............................ 2-118
Table 2-48: Maximum, average and minimum mean monthly flow at the selected river basins ..... 2-131
Table 2-49: Difference between historical and future average and minimum mean monthly flow at
the selected river basins .............................................................................................. 2-132
CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Table 3-1: Summary of yield for the WTPs in the Study ...................................................................... 3-5
Table 3-2: Summary of WTPs with insufficient yield assessed using low flow frequency analysis ... 3-17
Table 3-3: Summary of WTPs with insufficient flow assessed using flow duration curve ................. 3-21
Table 3-4: Summary of WTPs under storage scheme with insufficient storage sustainability .......... 3-24
Table 3-5: Summary of these WTPs that have low water level compared to their ciritival level ...... 3-27
v
Suruhanjaya Pe
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Work process for deriving the yield for direct run-of-river scheme ................................. 2-10
Figure 2-2: Work process for deriving the yield for storage scheme ................................................. 2-11
Figure 2-3: Schematic diagram of water resources system in Sg Kedah Basin ............................... 2-40
Figure 2-4: Schematic diagram of water resources system in Sg Melaka Basin .............................. 2-42
Figure 2-5: Schematic diagram of Sg Muda Basin ............................................................................ 2-45
Figure 2-6: Schematic Diagram for Sg Perak Basin .......................................................................... 2-51
Figure 2-7: Schematic diagram of water resources system in Sg Bernam Basin ............................. 2-52
Figure 2-8: Schematic diagram of water users in Sg Selangor Basin ............................................... 2-55
Figure 2-9: Reservoir simulation drawdown curves for various water abstraction rates ................... 2-60
Figure 2-10: Operating rule curve for Klang Gates Dam ................................................................... 2-62
Figure 2-11: Water release from Klang Gate Dam to Bukit Nanas WTP between year
2005-2015. .................................................................................................................... 2-63
Figure 2-12: Water release from Klang Gate Dam to Wangsa Maju WTP between year
2005-2015 ..................................................................................................................... 2-63
Figure 2-13: Operating rule curve for Tasik Subang Dam ................................................................. 2-65
Figure 2-14: Water release from Tasik Subang Dam to North Hammock WTP between year
2005–2015 .................................................................................................................... 2-66
Figure 2-15: Schematic diagram of Sg Langat Basin ........................................................................ 2-67
Figure 2-16: Semenyih Dam and Semenyih intake operation ........................................................... 2-70
Figure 2-17: Semenyih storage prediction (1994 – 2014) ................................................................. 2-71
Figure 2-18: Cumulative plotting of streamflow at Sg Langat at Dengkil station ............................... 2-73
Figure 2-19: Schematic of Pahang – Selangor Raw Water Transfer and Langat 2 project .............. 2-77
Figure 2-20: Schematic diagram of Pontian Dam ............................................................................. 2-81
Figure 2-21: Schematic diagram for Sg Linggi Basin ........................................................................ 2-82
Figure 2-22: Components of Triang Water Supply Scheme.............................................................. 2-84
Figure 2-23: Schematic Diagram of Sg Muar Basin .......................................................................... 2-86
Figure 2-24: Schematic Diagram of the WTP intakes in Sg Johor basin .......................................... 2-95
Figure 2-25: Schematic diagram of Sg Batu Pahat Basin ................................................................. 2-99
Figure 2-26: Operation control curve for Sembrong Dam (plotted by storage volumes) ................ 2-100
Figure 2-27: Operation control curve for Sembrong Dam (plotted by reservoir elevations) ............ 2-101
Figure 2-28: Operation control curve for Bekok Dam (plotted by storage volumes) ....................... 2-102
Figure 2-29: Operation control curve for Bekok Dam (plotted by reservoir elevations) .................. 2-102
Figure 2-30: Schematic diagram for Sg Endau Basin ..................................................................... 2-103
Figure 2-31: Operation control curve for Labong Dam (plotted by storage volumes) ..................... 2-104
Figure 2-32: Operation control curve for Labong Dam (plotted by reservoir elevations) ................ 2-105
Figure 2-33: Schematic diagram for Sg Pulai Basin ........................................................................ 2-107
Figure 2-34: Schematic diagram for Sg Kesang Basin ................................................................... 2-109
vi
Figure 2-35: Schematic diagram of Sg Melaka Basin...................................................................... 2-111

Figure 2-36: SOP for Melaka during normal operation mode .......................................................... 2-116
Figure 2-37: SOP for Melaka during drought operation mode ......................................................... 2-117

Figure 3-1: Yield assessment methodology and number or intakes sufficiency based on each
methodology......................................................................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-2: Summary of number of WTPs and flow sufficiency based on state .................................. 3-3
CHAPTER 4 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM

Figure 4-1: Development of GIS dataset ............................................................................................. 4-2
Figure 4-2 Distribution of WTPs in this Study ...................................................................................... 4-3
Figure 4-3 Distribution of intake points in this Study............................................................................ 4-3
Figure 4-4 Distribution of the dams in this Study ................................................................................. 4-4
Figure 4-5: Distribution of the river system in Malaysia ....................................................................... 4-4
Figure 4-6 Distribution of the intake catchments in this Study ............................................................. 4-5
Figure 4-7: Distribution of the dam catchments in this Study .............................................................. 4-5
Figure 4-8: Field names for WTPs in this Study .................................................................................. 4-6
Figure 4-9: Field names for intakes in this Study ................................................................................. 4-6
Figure 4-10: Field names of dams in this Study .................................................................................. 4-7
Figure 4-11: Field names of river system (Peninsular Malaysia) ......................................................... 4-7
Figure 4-12: Field names of river system (Borneo Malaysia) .............................................................. 4-8
Figure 4-13: Field names of intake catchments in this Study .............................................................. 4-8
vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Introduction
One of the risks in the operation of the WTP is the insufficiency of the raw water resources within the
system to meet the WTP raw water requirement. The assessment on the WTP system yield has
been included as part of the WSP Guidelines Study; with the aim that the findings could assist the
WTP operators in the identification of the potential risk factors related to the system yield. A total of
150 WTP intakes in Peninsular Malaysia and Federal Territory of Labuan has been selected for the
assessment of the yield sufficiency. The selected 150 intakes are listed in Table ES1.
Table ES1: List of intakes for Yield Study

No. State Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Design Capacity (MLD)
1 Timah Tasoh 70
2 Perlis Arau Fasa 1, 2 & 3 52
3 Arau Fasa 4 123
4 Sg Baru 54.5
5 Bukit Jenun Baru 55
6 Bukit Pinang 136.4
7 Padang Sanai 50
8 Pelubang 227.3
9 Pokok Sena 30
10 Padang Saga Fasa 3 18.2
11 Kedah Lubuk Buntar Baru (25) + Lama (34) 59
12 Bukit Tupah 18
13 Baling Baru (10 + 5.5) 15.5
14 Jeniang Baru 25
15 Pinang Tunggal 45.4
16 Kulim Hi-Tech 300
17 Sg Petani 181.8
18 Sg Ular 27.3
19 Bukit Toh Allang 68
20 Sg Dua 1,228
21 Pulau Pinang Batu Ferringgi 120
22 Guillemard 80
23 Air Itam 55
24 Sg Kampar 36.37
25 Bukit Temoh (Sg Batang Padang)
136
26 Perak Bukit Temoh (Sg Woh)
27 Hilir Perak 109
28 Kampung Paloh 76.8
ES-1
29 Sultan Idris Shah II (MUC Parit) 272.77
30 Teluk Kepayang 145
31 Sg Kinta 227.3
32 Ulu Kinta (MUC Ulu Kinta) 136.38
Perak
33 Gunung Semanggol 130
34 Jalan Baru 50
35 Air Terjun 65.38
36 Sg Geliting 50
37 Kalumpang 6.7
38 Bernam River Headworks (Lama & Baru) 65.5
39 Sg Sireh 27
40 SSP1 950
41 SSP2 950
42 SSP3 800
43 Rasa 250
44 Rantau Panjang 31.5
45 Batang Kali 20.3
46 Kuala Kubu Bharu 6.7
47 Sg Rangkap 9
48 Gombak 22.5
49 Ampang Intake 18
50 Selangor Sg Batu 113.7
51 Wangsa Maju 45
52 Bukit Nanas 145
53 North Hammock 22.5
54 Kepong 4.5
55 Sg Semenyih 545
56 Salak Tinggi 10.8
57 Sg Labu 105
58 Sungat Langat 386
59 Cheras Mile 11 27
60 Bukit Tampoi 31.5
61 Semenyih 2 100
62 Labohan Dagang 200
63 Langat 2 1,130
64 Sg Semantan 17.28
65 Lubuk Kawah 120
66 Ganchong 80
67 Pahang Seberang Temerloh 43.2
68 Jengka Utama 31.2
69 Sg Bilut 19.32
70 Kuala Medang 8.4
ES-2

71 Bukit Betong 12
72 Sg Jelai 28.8
73 Benta 12
74 Jengka 3 - 7 11.28
75 Triang 31.92
76 Lepar Hilir 14.4
77 Jengka 8 22.9
78 Pahang Bentong Fasa 2 45.46
79 Sg Keloi 30.24
80 Chini 21.6
81 Panching 168
82 Semambu 288
83 Bukit Ubi 36
84 Sepayang 36.36
85 Keratong 36.32
86 Bukit Bauk 63.64
87 Bukit Bunga 79.55
88 Bukit Sah 227.27
89 Terengganu Hulu Terengganu 55
90 Kepong I 90
91 Kepong II 180
92 Losong 43.18
93 Bukit Remah 40
94 Merbau Chondong 50
95 Kelantan Kelar 64
96 Sg Ketil 16
97 Pahi 21
98 Sg Linggi 136.36
99 Sawah Raja 50
100 Ngoi-Ngoi 136.36
101 Negeri Sg Terip 304.55
102 Sembilan Gemencheh 45.45
103 Jempol 54.55
104 Kuala Jelai 113.65
105 Gemas Baru 36.36
106 Palong Timur 6.82
107 Air Panas (A + C) 25.54
108 Bukit Serampang 4.55
109 Johor Grisek 62.2
110 Gombang 3.18
111 Pancor (1 - 4) 103.63
112 Bukit Hampar 14.18
ES-3
113 Kampung Tengah (1 + 2) 44.36
114 Pemanis 2.27
115 Jementah 2.27
116 Gunung Ledang 13.64
117 Bandar Tenggara 27.26
118 Batu 2 3.18
119 Sg Sayong 1 13.64
120 Sg Sayong 2 31.82
121 Semangar 318.23
122 Sg Johor 318.23
123 Linggiu 1.82
124 Sg Layang 358
125 Sg Lebam 54.55
126 Sembrong Barat 80
127 Johor Parit Raja 4 63.64
128 Sri Gading 72.1
129 Endau 10
130 Nitar 4.55
131 Kahang Baru 3.18
132 Kahang Timor 5.46
133 Sembrong Timor 26.16
134 Lok Heng 5.46
135 Mersing Baru 10
136 Skudai 68.19
137 Sg Gembut 9.09
138 Tenggaroh 11.37
139 Simpang Renggam 64
140 Gunung Pulai 81.83
141 Tenglu 15
142 Asahan 4.5
143 Chin-Chin 20
144 Merlimau 55
145 Bertam DAF I 120
Melaka
146 Bertam DAF II 120
147 Gadek 55
148 Bertam 182
149 Sebukor 68
150 W. P. Labuan Kampung Lawa Gadong, Beaufort 76
ES-4
B. Methodology
Different methodologies have been deployed for yield assessment according to the type of potable
water supply schemes; i.e., storage scheme or run-of-river scheme; data availability and the
complexity of the schemes.
The methodologies mainly comprise the followings:

i. Review of the findings from previous yield assessment studies
ii. Derivation of the yield via the low flow frequency analysis utilising historical or simulated
streamflow data as well as via the Hydrological Procedure HP 12: Magnitude and
Frequency of Low Flows in Peninsular Malaysia, HP 12 (JPS, 2015)
iii. Determination of the water availability based on flow duration curve utilising historical
streamflow records.
iv. Assessment on storage sustainability for direct supply scheme using simple water balance
analysis
C. General Remarks Applied in the Yield Assessment
The followings are the general remarks that have been applied in the yield assessment:
i. In the yield assessment of all the intakes, the existing water abstraction activities at the
upstream of the intake points need to be considered to derive the nett yield. In this Study,
the consideration of the existing water abstraction activities is limited to the existing potable
water abstractions only. The abstraction for irrigation is not considered as the potable water
supply is always accorded the highest priority under the extreme drought condition.
ii. The WTP raw water requirement is defined based on one of the followings whichever is
higher.
 Intake design capacity;

 Current water abstraction;
 Current WTP production with 5% WTP losses; or
 WTP design capacity with 5% WTP losses.
For scheme where the nett 7Q50 were derived, the yield at the WTP intake is concluded to
be sufficient if the nett 7Q50 is larger than the WTP raw water requirement.
For schemes where the FDC value were derived, no yield sufficiency is concluded but the
Study only provides the indication of the flow availability at different percentage of the time
at the intake against the WTP raw water requirement. The average numbers of water
ES-5
deficits days were provided as an indication of the performance of the intake since its
operation.
For direct supply storage scheme where the simple water balance method was deployed,
no yield sufficiency is concluded but the Study provides indication on the sustainability of
the dam storage to meet the WTP raw water requirement.
iii. The assessment of the climate change impact on the yield are based on the findings in the
NAHRIM study, namely ‘Extension Study of the Impacts of Climate Change on the
Hydrologic Regime and Water Resources of Peninsular Malaysia 2014’. A general impact
due to the climate change on the flow characteristics at the selected river basin based on
the NAHRIM study is presented in this Study.
iv. The assessment of intake and dam water level has been carried out on the received intake
and dam water level records supplied by the WTP operators. The performance of the
WTPs could be indicated by the frequency and duration of the dam or intake water level
drop below the critical low level.
In the assessment of intake and dam water levels, triggering levels (i.e. alert, warning and
critical level) and daily water level at intake and dam were used to assess the frequency of
the intake or dam water level drops below the critical level. Daily intake or dam (for direct
supply or regulating schemes) water level data which received to date were used.
D. Findings and Discussions
D1. Yield Assessment
The methodologies adopted in the yield assessment for the 150 intakes in this Study are
summarized in Figure ES1. The yield based on 7Q50 flow was derived for 111 intakes in which
the yield for the intake was considered sufficient if its nett yield is higher than its raw water
requirement. 19 intakes were assessed based on the flow availability according to the FDC at the
intake against the WTP raw water requirement. Average numbers of water deficits days were
provided as an indication of the performance of the intake since its operation. Another 20 intakes
were assessed based on the storage sustainability by adopting simple water balance analysis. Of
the 150 intakes selected for assessment, 114 intakes are able to meet the raw water requirement
of the WTPs. 36 intakes are found with river yield / historical flow records / dam storage capacity;
to be insufficient to meet the raw water requirement.
Summary of the yield, flow and storage sufficiency for the 36 intakes together with the remarks on
the findings from the intake or dam water level assessment is presented in Table ES2, Table
ES3 and Table ES4. Recommended mitigation measures or further detail assessments are
ES-6
provided in the same tables. The distribution of WTP intakes with insufficient river yield / historical
flow records / dam storage capacity based on state is shown in Figure ES2.
Figure ES1: Yield assessment methodology and number or intakes sufficiency

based on each methodology
ES-7
Figure ES2: Summary of number of WTPs and flow sufficiency based on state
ES-8
Table ES2: Summary of WTPs with insufficient yield assessed using low flow frequency analysis
Raw Water 50-year ARI
Water Treatment Water
No. State Requirement Yield, 7Q50 Remarks
Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD) (MLD)
1 Bukit Tupah Sg Bujang 18.9 1.5 The derived 7Q50 in this Study is found to be insufficient.
However, there is no water level records made available for
2 Kedah Baling Baru (10+5.5) Sg Baling 23.22 1.0
concurrent assessment on the performance of the intake.
3 Sg Ular 45.76 15 Further assessment could be carried out by the WTP
Pulau Sg Kulim operators on the historical intake operational records
4 Bukit Toh Allang 71.4 33.7
Pinang
The derived 7Q50 in this Study is found to be insufficient.
5 Air Terjun Sg Wang 68.65 4.9
Further assessment could be carried out by the WTP
operators on the historical intake operational records
Perak
The 7Q50 of Sg Geliting was adopted from the NAWABS
Sg Bernam (JPS, 2020) study.
6 Sg Geliting Sg Geliting 52.5 21.9
Sg Geliting WTP could be supplemented by Sg Slim intake
with larger 7Q50 yield of 147 MLD.
7 Kuala Kubu Bharu Sg Kubu 7.04 0.48 The derived 7Q50 in this Study is found to be insufficient.
8 Sg Rangkap Sg Kanching 9.45 2.76 concurrent assessment on the performance of the intake.
9 Gombak Sg Gombak 32.17 10.1 Further assessment could be carried out by the WTP
10 Selangor Ampang Intake Sg Ampang 18.9 4.8
11 Kepong Sg Buluh 4.73 0.39 concurrent assessment on the performance of the intake.
operators on the historical intake operational records.
ES-9
Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD) (MLD)
12 Wangsa Maju 47.25 The 7Q50 was adopted from the IRBM Sg Klang (LUAS,
Klang Gates
125 2016) study.
13 Bukit Nanas Dam 152.25
Detailed dam yield assessment is recommended to be
carried out to confirm the dam catchment yield and
Tasik
14 North Hammock 23.63 7 possibility to increase the dam storage or the need to
Subang Dam
transfer water from other sources.

15 Pahang Sg Keloi Sg Dong 31.75 14.8
Days where river level at intake dropped to Critical Level = 9

days (2020).
It is recommended that off-river storage (ORS) could be

provided as mitigation measures during the low flow period.
Negeri
16 Sg Linggi Sg Linggi 143.18 41.8
Sembilan
An ORS along Sg Linggi will be constructed to increase the
raw water resources in Negeri Sembilan and meet future
water demand of the proposed Malaysia Vision Valley
(MVV) development until 2030. The project is now in
detailed design stage by BBA
Currently, Sg Linggi WTP suppies 22 MLD to Seremban
district and 108 MLD to Port Dickson district. A new WTP
ES-10

Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD) (MLD)
located downstream of Sg Linggi WTP proposed together
with the ORS will have a minimum design capacity of 150
MLD. The proposed ORS and WTP can augment the water
supply in the districts. This can lessen the water stress
faced by Sg Linggi WTP.

17 Skudai Sg Skudai 77.38 64.5
The 7Q50 was derived in this Study after reviewing the

Kajian Sumber Air Negeri Johor (2010-2060) (BAKAJ,
2015).
Days below where river level at intake dropped to Critical

18 Pancor (1 - 4) Sg Muar 345.38 314.3 Level = 2 days (2020)
Johor
It is recommended that ORS could be provided as mitigation
measures during the low flow period or increase the release
from Talang Dam and Gemencheh Dam during the low flow

2015).
19 Batu 2 Sg Pelepah 3.86 2.34
The derived 7Q50 is found to be insufficient. However, there
is no water level records made available for concurrent
assessment on the performance of the intake. Further
ES-11
Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD) (MLD)
assessment could be carried out by the WTP operators on
the historical intake operational records.
The 7Q50 was derived after reviewing the Kajian Sumber

Air Negeri Johor (2010-2060) (BAKAJ, 2015).
Yield of Sg Layang WTP = 106.44 MLD (total nett direct

supply yield) + 13 MLD (compensation release from Upper
& Lower Layang Dams) + 175 MLD (water pumped from Sg
Upper & Johor WTP) = 294.44 MLD. The yield is still insufficient.
Sg Layang 375.9 294.44
20 Lower
Layang Dam Days where dam level dropped to Critical Level:
• Upper Layang Dam = 330 (2020)
• Lower Layang Dam = 352 (2020)
Sg Layang WTP could be supplemented by water pumped

from Sg Seluyut – range from 40 – 180 MLD

2015).
Pontian Kecil
/ Pulai 1 / Days where dam level dropped to Critical Level = 114
21 Gunung Pulai 89.08 51
Pulai 2 / (2020).
Pulai 3 Dam
Source work to transfer water from downstream of the river
and store in the existing dams could be considered.

22 Melaka Merlimau Sg Kesang 57.75 24.9
Source work to provide storage at the downstream of the
ES-12

Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD) (MLD)
basin could be implemented.
indicates WTPs that have recorded water level below critical level
Table ES3: Summary of WTPs with insufficient flow assessed using flow duration curve
Raw Water
No. State Requirement FDC Lowest Value (MLD) Remarks
Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD)
The historical flow records that reflect the
1 SSP1 1,129 Sg Selangor dam release showed that
there were 4% of time (15 days), the
2 SSP2 1,023 arriving flow at SSP group of intakes was
less than 3035 MLD.
This could be due to the operation of the
dam which causing delay in the dam
release to arrive at the intake during low
flow period.
Further assessment could be carried out

Selangor Sg Selangor 592 on the dam storage at the corresponding
period to assess whether the
insufficiency is due to the low dam
3 SSP3 883.16
storage or dam operation.
Further assessment on the dam

operation data could be carried to
identify the limitation in dam operation for
further improvement.
Days where river level at intake dropped

to Critical Level:
ES-13
Raw Water
Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD)
• SSP1 = 1 (2019)
• SSP 3 = 1 (2019), 1 (2020)
1% of time (4 days) flow < 270 MLD.

4 Rasa Sg Selangor 270 232 Same recommendation as the SSP
intakes
3% of the time (equivalent to an average
of 11 days in a year), the river flow
arriving at Sg Johor WTP intake is less
than 334.14 MLD.
5 Johor Sg Johor Sg Johor 334.14 55
It is recommended that ORS could be
provided as mitigation measures during
the low flow period
10% of time (37 days) flow < 282 MLD

6 Bertam Sg Melaka 200 Days the river or dam level dropped to to
Critical Level:
Bertam
• Durian Tunggal Dam = 20
(2018), 278 (2019), 122 (2020)
• Sg Melaka = 1 (2017), 15
Melaka 130 (2018), 132 (2019), 71 (2021)
7 Sebukor Sg Melaka 71.4
Sebukur
(2018), 278 (2019), 122 (2020)
Sg Melaka basin has experience unusual
drought during the 2019 to early year of
2020 period. The drought had caused
ES-14
Raw Water
Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD)
the dam storage in the Sg Malaka basin
dropped to critical level and water
rationing has been carried out.
The incident had shown insufficient

water source within the basin to meet the
water demand. Source work to provide
storage at the downstream of the basin
are needed as well the water transfer
from adjacent basins could be
implemented.
Table ES4: Summary of WTPs under storage scheme with insufficient storage sustainability
Raw Water
No. State Requirement Storage Sustainability (Days) Remarks
Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD)
Tk Bahang Dam = 18 MCM.
1 Batu Ferringgi 126 Sg Air Hitam Dam = 2.6 MCM.
Tk Bahang
86 days
Dam
2 Guillemard 84 The dry period in the northern region has
the possibility to span over 3 months;
Pulau starts from December to January until
Pinang March of the subsequent year.
3 Air Itam Sg Air Itam 57.75 45 days Detailed dam yield assessment is
recommended to be carried out to
confirm the dam catchment yield and
possibility to increase the dam storage or
ES-15
Raw Water
Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD)
the need to transfer water from other
sources.
Sultan Azlan Shah Dam = 28.6 MCM.
The dry period in the northern region has

4 Sg Kinta 238.67 the possibility to span over 3 months;
starts from December to January until
March of the subsequent year.
Sultan Azlan
Perak 75 days
Shah Dam Detailed dam yield assessment is
Ulu Kinta (MUC Ulu confirm the dam catchment yield and
5 143.2 possibility to increase the dam storage or
Kinta)
sources.
Durian Durian Tunggal Dam = 32.6 MCM

6 Bertam DAF I 126 129 days Based on the storage sustainability, the
Tunggal Dam
dam can last up to 129 days which is
sufficient to cater for the 3 months
drought.
Melaka
7 Bertam DAF II 126 129 days However, historical records show the
dam has been facing low dam water
storage at only 50% for 20 days in 2018,
278 days in 2019 and 122 days in 202
ES-16
D2. Assessment of Climate Change Impact to Yield
The assessment of climate change impact on yield has been carried out by reviewing the latest
report published by NAHRIM, namely ‘Extension Study of the Impacts of Climate Change on the
Hydrologic Regime and Water Resources of Peninsular Malaysia 2014’ (termed as NAHRIM CC
2014). Impact assessment of climate change on river flows was carried out on 11 selected river
basins of Peninsular Malaysia.
Based on the findings of NAHRIM CC 2014 study, the maximum and average mean monthly flow
will experience an increasing trend while the minimum monthly mean flow of all the selected river
basins will experience a decreasing trend resulting from the climate change impact. In view of the
minimum monthly mean flow of all the selected river basins is expected to experience a
decreasing trend in the future, due to the impact of climate change, it could be foreseen that the
flow availability during dry period at the 11 selected river basins will reduce in the future.
E. Findings and Discussions
The followings are the conclusion and recommendations that could be drawn from the Yield Study:
i. For the scheme where the 7Q50 has been derived using the HP 12 or low flow frequency
analysis, it provides indication on yield sufficiency in meeting the WTP raw water
requirement. For scheme where the derived yield is found to be insufficient, mitigation
measures such as provision of the raw water storage using ORS is recommended to
increase the yield for the scheme.
ii. For regulating scheme where the FDC values have been derived based on the historical
streamflow records reflecting the scheme regulated operation, it provides indication on
the scheme performance with findings on the flow availability at different percentage of
time and average numbers of water deficit days against the WTP raw water requirement.
For scheme where the FDC shows insufficiency, it could be due to limitation in the dam
or ORS operating procedure which causing insufficient release or delay in the release to
regulate the WTP intake. This findigns is useful to gauge the efficiency of the current
operating procedure and provide indication for further investigation and future
improvement to the current operating procedure.
iii. For direct supply storage scheme where the simple water balance computation has been
conducted, it provides indication on the sustainability of the dam storage to meet the
WTP raw water requirement. This assessment is based on the assumptions that the dam
storage is full at the onset of the drought and is able to recharge to its full supply level
prior to the next drought episode. It does not provide conclusion on the yield for the
direct supply dam. For direct supply scheme that shows insufficiency in the storage days,
ES-17
it is recommended that the detail assessment to be carried out to assess the dam yield
to confirm the dam catchment yield and possibility to increase the dam storage or the
need to transfer water from other sources to increase the dam storage. Provision of
additional storage may be required to increase the water sufficiency.
iv. From the assessment of the WTP intake and dam operation records, there are WTPs
showing flow sufficiency in meeting the WTP raw water requirement but with previous
water level records dropped below the critical low level. This suggested futher
assessment by the WTP operators to revisit the intake design or identify any possible
change in the river bed level that affecting the intake efficiency.
v. Besides, the assessment of climate change impact on yield has also been carried out by
reviewing the latest report published by NAHRIM in year 2014, namely ‘Extension Study
of the Impacts of Climate Change on the Hydrologic Regime and Water Resources of
Peninsular Malaysia 2014’. From the findings of NAHRIM CC 2014 study, it can be seen
that the minimum monthly mean flow of all the selected river basins (Sg Batu Pahat, Sg
Johor, Sg Muda, Sg Klang, Sg Kelantan, Sg Linggi, Sg Muar, Sg Pahang, Sg Perak, Sg
Selangor, and Sg Dungun) will experience a decreasing trend resulting from the climate
change impact. Hence, it could be foreseen that the low flow available at the 11 selected
river basins will reduce in the future due to the impact of climate change. Provision of
additional water storage to store the water during high flow and used it during dry season
is anticipated as the adaption measures for the climate change.
ES-18
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The incidents of water treatment plant (WTP) closure due to pollution and other plant problems
have been frequently happening in Malaysia lately. The closure of WTPs and reduction in plant
production had severely impacted the consumers. In view of this, Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air
Negara (SPAN) as the regulatory body for water services industry in Peninsular Malaysia and
Federal Territory of Labuan has taken the proactive steps towards an effective risk management
of water supply system by conducting a study to develop of Water Safety Plan (WSP) Guidelines
which covers localized risks from source to tap.
One of the risks in the operation of the WTP is the insufficiency of raw water resources within the
system yield to meet the WTP raw water requirement. The assessment on the WTP system yield
has been included as part of this WSP Guidelines Study; with the aim that the findings could assist
the WTP operators in the identification of the potential risk factors related to the system yield. A
total of 150 WTP intakes in Peninsular Malaysia and Federal Territory of Labuan has been
selected for the assessment of the yield sufficiency. The selected 150 intakes are listed in Table
1-1.
1.2 Study Objectives
The Study aims to assess the sufficiency of the yield for the selected 150 WTPs in Peninsular
Malaysia and Federal Territory of Labuan as listed in Table 1-1 (termed as study intakes). The
yield sufficiency assessment is carried out based on the hydrological yield or the water availability
during the low flow period in meeting the WTP raw water requirement. A supplementary
assessment on the intake performance based on the sufficiency of river command level at the
intake has also been carried out using the historical water level records at the WTP intakes.
1.3 Scope of Works
The scope of works for the yield study consists of the following:
i. Collect and compile Geographic Information System (GIS) data related to the WTPs and
intakes.
ii. Literature review of previous studies report;
iii. Demarcate the intake or dam catchment;
iv. Identify existing potable water abstraction activities located upstream of downstream of
the intake;
v. Identify and acquire the hydro-meteorological data for the stations located within or nearby
the intake catchments for flow derivation;
1-1
vi. Derive long-term flow series at intake using various methods which include flow
transposition method, rainfall-runoff model or reservoir operational records;
vii. Carry out yield assessment for the study intakes using Hydrological Procedure No. 12
(JPS, 2015), low flow frequency analysis or by reviewing previous studies report,
whichever is applicable;
viii. Assess the performance of the study intake in terms of sufficiency of hydrological yield or
water availability in meeting the WTP raw water requirement;
ix. Carry out assessment on the historical intake water level records with relative to the
critical low operating level. This is to assess the intake performance in terms of sufficiency
of the river command level to ensure efficient water abstraction at the intake.
Table 1-1: List of intakes for yield study

1 Timah Tasoh 70
2 Perlis Arau Fasa 1, 2 & 3 52
3 Arau Fasa 4 123
4 Sg Baru 54.5
5 Bukit Jenun Baru 55
6 Bukit Pinang 136.4
7 Padang Sanai 50
8 Pelubang 227.3
9 Pokok Sena 30
10 Padang Saga Fasa 3 18.2
11 Kedah Lubuk Buntar Baru (25) + Lama (34) 59
12 Bukit Tupah 18
13 Baling Baru (10 + 5.5) 15.5
14 Jeniang Baru 25
15 Pinang Tunggal 45.4
16 Kulim Hi-Tech 300
17 Sg Petani 181.8
18 Sg Ular 27.3
19 Bukit Toh Allang 68
20 Sg Dua 1,228
21 Pulau Pinang Batu Ferringgi 120
22 Guillemard 80
23 Air Itam 55
24 Sg Kampar 36.37
25 Bukit Temoh (Sg Batang Padang)
136
26 Perak Bukit Temoh (Sg Woh)
27 Hilir Perak 109
28 Kampung Paloh 76.8
1-2

29 Sultan Idris Shah II (MUC Parit) 272.77
30 Teluk Kepayang 145
31 Sg Kinta 227.3
32 Ulu Kinta (MUC Ulu Kinta) 136.38
33 Gunung Semanggol 130
34 Jalan Baru 50
35 Air Terjun 65.38
36 Sg Geliting 50
37 Kalumpang 6.7
38 Bernam River Headworks (Lama & Baru) 65.5
39 Sg Sireh 27
40 SSP1 950
41 SSP2 950
42 SSP3 800
43 Rasa 250
44 Rantau Panjang 31.5
45 Batang Kali 20.3
46 Kuala Kubu Bharu 6.7
47 Sg Rangkap 9
48 Gombak 22.5
49 Ampang Intake 18
50 Selangor Sg Batu 113.7
51 Wangsa Maju 45
52 Bukit Nanas 145
53 North Hammock 22.5
54 Kepong 4.5
55 Sg Semenyih 545
56 Salak Tinggi 10.8
57 Sg Labu 105
58 Sungat Langat 386
59 Cheras Mile 11 27
60 Bukit Tampoi 31.5
61 Semenyih 2 100
62 Labohan Dagang 200
63 Langat 2 1,130
64 Sg Semantan 17.28
65 Lubuk Kawah 120
66 Ganchong 80
67 Pahang Seberang Temerloh 43.2
68 Jengka Utama 31.2
69 Sg Bilut 19.32
70 Kuala Medang 8.4
1-3
71 Bukit Betong 12
72 Sg Jelai 28.8
73 Benta 12
74 Jengka 3 - 7 11.28
75 Triang 31.92
76 Lepar Hilir 14.4
77 Jengka 8 22.9
78 Bentong Fasa 2 45.46
79 Sg Keloi 30.24
80 Chini 21.6
81 Panching 168
82 Semambu 288
83 Bukit Ubi 36
84 Sepayang 36.36
85 Keratong 36.32
86 Bukit Bauk 63.64
87 Bukit Bunga 79.55
88 Bukit Sah 227.27
89 Terengganu Hulu Terengganu 55
90 Kepong I 90
91 Kepong II 180
92 Losong 43.18
93 Bukit Remah 40
94 Merbau Chondong 50
95 Kelantan Kelar 64
96 Sg Ketil 16
97 Pahi 21
98 Sg Linggi 136.36
99 Sawah Raja 50
100 Ngoi-Ngoi 136.36
101 Negeri Sg Terip 304.55
102 Sembilan Gemencheh 45.45
103 Jempol 54.55
104 Kuala Jelai 113.65
105 Gemas Baru 36.36
106 Palong Timur 6.82
107 Air Panas (A + C) 25.54
108 Bukit Serampang 4.55
109 Johor Grisek 62.2
110 Gombang 3.18
111 Pancor (1 - 4) 103.63
112 Bukit Hampar 14.18
1-4

113 Kampung Tengah (1 + 2) 44.36
114 Pemanis 2.27
115 Jementah 2.27
116 Gunung Ledang 13.64
117 Bandar Tenggara 27.26
118 Batu 2 3.18
119 Sg Sayong 1 13.64
120 Sg Sayong 2 31.82
121 Semangar 318.23
122 Sg Johor 318.23
123 Linggiu 1.82
124 Sg Layang 358
125 Sg Lebam 54.55
126 Sembrong Barat 80
127 Parit Raja 4 63.64
128 Sri Gading 72.1
129 Endau 10
130 Nitar 4.55
131 Kahang Baru 3.18
132 Kahang Timor 5.46
133 Sembrong Timor 26.16
134 Lok Heng 5.46
135 Mersing Baru 10
136 Skudai 68.19
137 Sg Gembut 9.09
138 Tenggaroh 11.37
139 Simpang Renggam 64
140 Gunung Pulai 81.83
141 Tenglu 15
142 Asahan 4.5
143 Chin-Chin 20
144 Merlimau 55
145 Bertam DAF I 120
Melaka
146 Bertam DAF II 120
147 Gadek 55
148 Bertam 182
149 Sebukor 68
150 W. P. Labuan Kampung Lawa Gadong, Beaufort 76
1-5
2.1 Introduction
The potable water supply scheme in Malaysia mainly comprises the direct run-of-river scheme and
storage scheme. Under the run-of-river scheme, raw water is abstracted directly from an intake
point along the river. For storage scheme, a reservoir is built to create storage for the water. The
water stored in reservoir could be abstracted directly to supply to WTP or to regulate the flow at
the downstream to enable water abstraction at the downstream intake.
For both schemes, the flow is contributed by the catchment area at the upstream of the run-of-
river intake or the reservoir. The estimation of flow availability for the intake or reservoir catchment
is essential in ensuring that the water source is sufficient to meet the water demand.
Based on the MWA Design Guidelines for Water Supply Systems published in 1994 and the
SPAN Uniform Technical Guidelines for the Design of Water Treatment Plants and Related Water
Supply System Components (2021), the 1 in 50-year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) low flow
is adopted in the design of potable water supply schemes.
There are several issues commonly faced by the water operator during the operation of the
scheme which affect the flow availability of the water supply scheme. The key issues are as
follows:
i. Improper design of the scheme where the water abstraction is greater than the design low
flow yield at the intake, causing the WTP could not produce up to its designed capacity
under low flow conditions.
ii. Insufficient river level at the intake (termed as river command level) which affect the
quantity of raw water that could be abstracted.
iii. Improper dam operating procedure which results in wastage of dam release.
iv. Drought episodes which exceeded the design ARI of 50-year occurred more frequent and
pro-long.
It could be seen that flow quantity (also known as hydrological yield) is not the only governing
factor affecting the intake performance but the river command level at the intake is also an
important factor. Thus, in this yield study, the performance of the study intake has been assessed
in two aspects; flow quantity and river command level at the intake.
2-1
2.2 Data Collected for the Study
The Study entails an enormous amount of data collection and literature review, necessary to
locate the study intake, demarcate the intake catchments, identify the existing potable water
abstraction activities located within the intake catchment, understand the characteristics of the
intake catchments, mode of operation of the study intake as well as pertinent key and current
issues affecting the performance of the study intake. The list of data types and purposes for this
Study is presented in Table 2-1 and summary of the data collection is shown in Table 2-2.
Table 2-1: List of data types and purposes in the Study
Item Data Purposes Remarks

i Intake and dam location  Catchment demarcation -
 Preparation of GIS
database
ii WTP / Intake design capacity To assess the flow availability -
or current abstraction at the intake versus the WTP /
Intake design capacity or
current abstraction
iii Intake or dam operational To assess the water level These data are meant
records and triggering levels changes in the dam and to substantiate the
sufficiency of the river findings on the flow
command level at the intake availability
iv Intake or dam design report To review the design of the -
scheme
Remarks: River command level refers to the river water level in relative to the intake or pump level
to enable the water to be abstracted or pumped at the WTP intake.
The intake or dam operational record and triggering level have been requested from the operators
for each intake and dam related to this Study. This is an additional assessment done for the yield
study to check the performance of the intake or dam by cross-checking with the yield derived in
this Study. This data has been obtained for 63 intakes (42%) and the assessment is discussed in
Section 2.5. Incomplete data received for some intakes did not affect the yield study as it is only
an additional assessment to substantiate the findings for yield study.
2-2
Table 2-2: Summary of data collection
Type of Data Collected

Design Year of
Water Treatment Plant WTP Intake Current Intake Dam Intake
State Capacity Intake Dam Triggering Commission or Dam Design
(WTP) Design Design Abstraction Operational Operational Design
(MLD) Location Location Level Upgrading of Report
Capacity Capacity Rate Records Records Report
WTP
Timah Tasoh 36 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Perlis Arau Fasa 1, 2 & 3 52 √ √ √ √ √ √
Arau Fasa 4 123 √ √ √ √ √ √
Sg Baru 54.5 √ √ √ √ √
Bukit Jenun Baru 55 √ √ √ √ √
Bukit Pinang 136.4 √ √ √ √ √
Padang Sanai 50 √ √ √ √ √
Pelubang 227.3 √ √ √ √ √
Pokok Sena 30 √ √ √ √ √
Padang Saga Fasa 3 18.2 √ √ √ √ √ √
Lubuk Buntar Baru (25) +
Kedah 59 √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Lama (34)
Bukit Tupah 18 √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Baling Baru (10 + 5.5) 15.5 √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Jeniang Baru 25 √ √ √ √ √
Pinang Tunggal 45.4 √ √ √ √ √
Kulim Hi-Tech 300 √ √ √ √ √
Sg Petani 181.8 √ √ √ √ √
Sg Ular 27.3 √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Bukit Toh Allang 68 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Sg Dua 1,228 √ √ √ √ √ √
Pulau Pinang Batu Ferringgi 120 √ √ √ √
Guillemard 80 √ √ √ √ √ √
Air Itam 55 √ √ √ √ √ √
Sg Kampar 36.37 Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Bukit Temoh (Sg Batang
√ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Padang) 136
Bukit Temoh (Sg Woh) √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Hilir Perak 109 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Kampung Paloh 76.8 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Sultan Idris Shah II (MUC
272.77 √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Parit)
Perak
Teluk Kepayang 145 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Sg Kinta 227.3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Ulu Kinta (MUC Ulu Kinta) 136.38 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Gunung Semanggol 130 √ √ √
Jalan Baru 50 √ √ √
Air Terjun 65.38 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Sg Geliting 50 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
2-3
Design Year of
WTP
Kalumpang 6.7 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Bernam River Headworks
65.5 √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
(Lama & Baru)
Sg Sireh 27 √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
SSP1 950 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
SSP2 950 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
SSP3 800 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Rasa 250 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Rantau Panjang 31.5 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Batang Kali 20.3 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Kuala Kubu Bharu 6.7 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Sg Rangkap 9 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Gombak 22.5 √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Ampang Intake 18 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Selangor Sg Batu 113.7 √ √ √ √ √
Wangsa Maju 45 √ √ √ √ √
Bukit Nanas 145 √ √ √ √ √
North Hammock 22.5 √ √ √ √
Kepong 4.5 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Sg Semenyih 545 √ √ √ √ √ √
Salak Tinggi 10.8 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Sg Labu 105 √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Sg Langat 386 √ √ √ √ √ √
Cheras Mile 11 27 √ √ √ √ √ √
Bukit Tampoi 31.5 √ √ √ √ √
Semenyih 2 100 √ √ √ √ √ √
Labohan Dagang 200 √ √ √ √ √ √
Langat 2 1130 √ √ √ √
Sg Semantan 17.28 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Lubuk Kawah 120 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Ganchong 80 √ √ √ √
Seberang Temerloh 43.2 √ √ √ √
Jengka Utama 31.2 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Pahang Sg Bilut 19.32 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Kuala Medang 8.4 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Bukit Betong 12 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Sg Jelai 28.8 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Benta 12 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Jengka 3 - 7 11.28 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
2-4

Design Year of
WTP
Triang 31.92 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Lepar Hilir 14.4 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Jengka 8 22.9 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Bentong Fasa 2 45.46 √ √ √
Sg Keloi 30.24 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Pahang Chini 21.6 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Panching 168 √ √ √ √
Semambu 288 √ √ √ √
Bukit Ubi 36 √ √ √ √
Sepayang 36.36 √ √ √ √
Keratong 36.32 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Bukit Bauk 63.64 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Bukit Bunga 79.55 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Bukit Sah 227.27 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Terengganu Hulu Terengganu 55 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Kepong I 90 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Kepong II 180 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Losong 43.18 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Bukit Remah 40 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Merbau Chondong 50 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Kelantan Kelar 64 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Sg Ketil 16 √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Pahi 21 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Sg Linggi 136.36 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Sawah Raja 50 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Ngoi-Ngoi 136.36 √ √ √ √ √ √
Sg Terip 304.55 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Negeri
Sembilan Gemencheh
45.45 √ √ √ √ √ √
Jempol 54.55 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Kuala Jelai 113.65 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Gemas Baru 36.36 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Palong Timur 6.82 √ √ √ √ √ √
Air Panas (A + C) 25.54 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Bukit Serampang 4.55 √ √ √ √ √ √
Johor Grisek 62.2 √ √ √ √ √ √
Gombang 3.18 √ √ √ √ √ √
Pancor (1 - 4) 103.63 √ √ √ √ √ √
Bukit Hampar 14.18 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
2-5
Design Year of
WTP
Kampung Tengah (1 + 2) 44.36 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Pemanis 2.27 √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Jementah 2.27 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Gunung Ledang 13.64 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Bandar Tenggara 27.26 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Batu 2 3.18 √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable √ Not Applicable
Sg Sayong 1 13.64 √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Sg Sayong 2 31.82 √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Semangar 318.23 √ √ √ √ √ √
Sg Johor 318.23 √ √ √ √ √ √
Linggiu 1.82 √ √ √ √ √ √
Sg Layang 358 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Sg Lebam 54.55 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Sembrong Barat 80 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Johor Parit Raja 4 63.64 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Sri Gading 72.1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Endau 10 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Nitar 4.55 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Kahang Baru 3.18 √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Kahang Timor 5.46 √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Sembrong Timor 26.16 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Lok Heng 5.46 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Mersing Baru 10 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Skudai 68.19 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Sg Gembut 9.09 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Tenggaroh 11.37 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Simpang Renggam 64 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Gunung Pulai 81.83 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Tenglu 15 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Asahan 4.5 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Chin-Chin 20 Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Merlimau 55 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Bertam DAF I 120 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Melaka
Bertam DAF II 120 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Gadek 55 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Bertam 182 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Sebukor 68 √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Kampung Lawa Gadong,
W. P. Labuan 76 √ Not Applicable √ √ √ Not Applicable √ √ Not Applicable
Beaufort
Remarks: indicates no data received
2-6
2.3 Methodology
The design capacity of the selected 150 WTPs varies from 2 MLD to 1,228 MLD. The WTP
intakes located in the state of Perlis, Kedah, Pulau Pinang, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Melaka
and Johor mostly being regulated by dams. For most of the intakes in the state of Perak, Kelantan,
Terengganu and Pahang, they are run-of-river scheme.
Different methodologies have been deployed for yield assessment according to the type of potable
water supply schemes; i.e., storage scheme or run-of-river scheme; data availability and the
complexity of the schemes.
The methodologies mainly comprise the followings:

v. Review of the findings from previous yield assessment studies
vi. Derivation of the yield via the low flow frequency analysis utilising historical or simulated
streamflow data as well as via the Hydrological Procedure HP 12: Magnitude and
Frequency of Low Flows in Peninsular Malaysia, HP 12 (JPS, 2015)
vii. Determination of the water availability based on flow duration curve utilising historical
streamflow records.
viii. Assessment on storage sustainability for direct supply scheme using simple water balance
analysis
a) Review of the findings from previous yield assessment studies
This method is applicable for intakes (run-of-river or storage scheme) where previous studies
related to yield assessment have been carried out. Review of the findings from these studies have
been carried out to ascertain the yield. The list of the previous studies comprises the followings:
i. IRBM Sg Selangor (LUAS, 2014)

ii. IRBM Sg Langat (LUAS, 2015)
iii. Kajian Sumber Air Negeri Johor (2010 – 2060) (BAKAJ, 2015)
iv. Semenyih Dam Storage Prediction Model (Konsortium ABASS Sdn Bhd, 2015)
v. IRBM Sg Klang (JPS, 2016)
vi. IRBM Sg Kuantan (JPS, 2018)
vii. NAWABS Sg Muda (JPS, 2019)
viii. Development of Batu Dam Operating Rule Curve (Air Selangor, 2019)
ix. NAWABS Sg Kedah (JPS, 2020)
x. NAWABS Sg Melaka (JPS, 2020)
xi. NAWABS Sg Bernam (JPS, 2020)
xii. Sg Johor ORS Concept Design (BBA, 2020)
2-7
There are two types of outcomes from the review of the previous studies:
i. Under the condition where the findings from the previous studies are found to be
sufficient to provide conclusion on the yield or water availability of the intake, the
findngs from those studies have been adopted directly. This mainly comprises the
findings from comprehensive water resources studies such as ‘Review of The National
Water Resources Study (2000 – 2050) and Formulation of National Water Resources
Policy’ by JPS (termed as NWRS 2011) and ‘Kajian Sumber Air Negeri Johor (2010-
2060) by BAKAJ (2015)’.
For some of the intakes where yield assessment has been derived in multipled studies,
comparison was carried out between the values. Yield derived using latest data, more
comprehensive modelling approach or consistent values between the studies is
adopted.
ii. Under the condition where findings from previous studies were found to be insufficient
to conclude on the yield sufficiency or water availability for that intake, additional
analysis has been carried out under this Study to substantiate the findings. The
additional analysis comprises low flow frequency analysis or flow duration curve
analysis varies based on the type of the scheme and data availability.
b) Derivation of the yield via the low flow frequency analysis utilising streamflow records
or via the HP 12 (JPS, 2015)
This method mainly applies on the run-off-scheme where the catchment flow is of natural without
water storage such as dam or off-rive storage to regulate the flow.
For run-of-river scheme, the adoption of low flow frequency analysis or HP 12 is mainly based on
the following criteria:
 For those run-of-river schemes where the previous nett reliable yield obtained from the
NWRS 2011 is much bigger compared to its design capacity, or with fairly large intake
catchment area, 7Q50 has been derived using the HP 12 (JPS, 2015).
 For those run-of-river schemes where the previous nett reliable yield obtained from NWRS
2011 is much smaller or lower than its design capacity, or with fairly small intake
catchment, or the derived 7Q50 using HP 12 is found to be insufficient, 7Q50 has been
obtained by conducting the low flow frequency analysis.
There are cases where the low flow frequency analysis has been carried out to determine the yield
for some regulating scheme. This is applicable for regulating schemes where the streamflow
2-8
records after the implementation of the dam are sufficiently long and the change in the flow regime
is found to be not significant.
c) Determination of the water availability based on flow duration curve (FDC) utilising
historical streamflow records
This method mainly applies on the regulating scheme where the flow at the intake has been
regulated by the dam or off-river-storage (ORS).
The flow duration curve (FDC) method was deployed to illustrate the water availability after the
implementation of the dam or the ORS and to assess on the water sufficiency based on the
percentage of deficit days. This analysis is not meant to provide the yield but is used to assess the
water availability of the regulating intake after the commencement of the regulating structures.
d) Assessment on storage sustainability for direct supply scheme using simple water
balance analysis
This method is mainly applicable for direct supply storage schemes where no sufficient information
could be referred to for the yield assessment. Simple water balance computation has been
conducted to assess the sustainability of the dam storage to fulfil the intake water demand.
Flow charts in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 show the process or approach adopted in selecting
suitable methodology for yield assessment in this Study.
2-9
Figure 2-1: Work process for deriving the yield for direct run-of-river scheme
2-10
Figure 2-2: Work process for deriving the yield for storage scheme
2-11
The followings are the general remarks that have been applied in the yield assessment:
iv. In the yield assessment of all the intakes, the existing water abstraction activities at the
upstream of the intake points need to be considered to derive the nett yield. In this
Study, the consideration of the existing water abstraction activities shall limit to the
existing potable water abstractions only. The abstraction for irrigation is not considered
as the potable water supply is always accorded the highest priority under the extreme
drought condition.
v. The WTP raw water requirement is defined based on one of the followings whichever is
higher.
 Intake design capacity;

 Current water abstraction;
 Current WTP production with 5% WTP losses; or
 WTP design capacity with 5% WTP losses.
For scheme where the nett 7Q50 were derived, the yield at the WTP intake is concluded
to be sufficient if the nett 7Q50 is larger than the WTP raw water requirement.
For schemes where the FDC value were derived, no yield sufficiency is concluded but the
Study only provides the indication of the flow avaibility at different percentage of the time
at the intake against the WTP raw water requirement. The average numbers of water
deficits days were provided as an indication of the performance of the intake since its
operation.
For direct supply storage scheme where the simple water balance method was deployed,
no yield sufficiency is concluded but the Study provides indication on the sustainability of
the dam storage to meet the WTP raw water requirement.
vi. The assessment of the climate change impact on the yield are based on the findings in
the NAHRIM study, namely ‘Extension Study of the Impacts of Climate Change on the
Hydrologic Regime and Water Resources of Peninsular Malaysia 2014’. A general impact
due to the climate change on the flow characteristics at the selected river basin based on
the NAHRIM study is presented in Section 2.6.
Table 2-3 presents the summary of the yield estimation method for the 150 intakes in the Study.
Details of the yield estimation method are presented in Section 2.4.
2-12
Table 2-3: Yield estimation method for the intakes in this Study
Design Estimated Yield

Water Treatment Water Supply
No. State Capacity River Basin Water Source from NWRS 2011 Yield Estimation Method
Plant (WTP) Scheme
(MLD) Study (MLD)
Review of IRBM Sg Perlis
Direct Supply (JPS, 2010), NWRS 2011
Timah Tasoh
1 Timah Tasoh 70 (Timah Tasoh - (JPS, 2011) + simple
Dam
Perlis Dam) water balance
Sg Perlis computation
2 Arau Fasa 1, 2 & 3 52 MADA North -
3 Arau Fasa 4 123 Canal -
MADA Arau
4 Sg Baru 54.5 54.5
Canal
MADA South
5 Bukit Jenun Baru 55 27.5
Canal Regulated (Muda
MADA Central Review of NAWABS Sg
6 Bukit Pinang 136.4 / Pedu / Ahning 136.4
Canal Kedah report (JPS, 2020)
Dam)
Sg Padang
7 Padang Sanai 50 Sg Kedah 1.4
Sanai
Sg Padang
8 Pelubang 227.3 140.9
Terap
MADA Central
9 Pokok Sena 30 -
Kedah Canal
Review of NWRS (JPS,
Padang Saga Fasa Sg Melaka / Off river storage 2011) + FDC + simple
10 18.2 Sg Melaka 10.6
3 Malut Dam (ORS) water balance
computation
Lubuk Buntar Baru
11 59 Sg Kerian Sg Kerian 277.4 HP 12
(25) + Lama (34)
12 Bukit Tupah 18 Sg Merbok Sg Bujang Run-of-river 2.8
Low flow frequency
Baling Baru (10 + analysis
13 15.5 Sg Baling 2.41
5.5)
14 Jeniang Baru 25 Sg Muda -
Regulated (Beris Review of NAWABS Sg
Sg Muda
15 Pinang Tunggal 45.4 Dam) 45.5 Muda report (JPS, 2019) +
2-13
Plant (WTP) Scheme
(MLD) Study (MLD)
16 Kulim Hi-Tech 300 150 FDC
17 Kedah Sg Petani 181.8 181.1
Low flow frequency
18 Sg Ular 27.3 Sg Perai Sg Kulim Run-of-river 16.7
analysis
Low flow frequency
19 Bukit Toh Allang 68 Sg Perai Sg Kulim Run-of-river 38.6
analysis
Review of NAWABS Sg
Sg Muda / Sg Muda / Sg Regulated (Beris /
20 Sg Dua 1,228 900 Muda report (JPS, 2019) +
Sg Perai Kulim Muda Dam)
FDC
Pulau
Pinang Tk Bahang
21 Batu Ferringgi 120 35
Sg Tk. Dam Direct Supply (Tk Review of NWRS 2011
Bahang Tk Bahang Bahang Dam) (JPS, 2011) + simple
22 Guillemard 80 12
Dam water balance
Regulated (Air computation
23 Air Itam 55 Sg Dondang Sg Air Itam 7
Itam Dam)
24 Sg Kampar 36.37 Sg Kampar 246.83 HP 12
Bukit Temoh (Sg Sg Batang
25 225.01
Batang Padang) Padang
136
Bukit Temoh (Sg
26 Sg Woh -
Woh)
27 Hilir Perak 109 Sg Sungkai Run-of-river 363.03 Low flow frequency
analysis
28 Kampung Paloh 76.8 Sg Perak 8,073.56
Perak
Sultan Idris Shah II
29 272.77 Sg Perak 8,299.92
(MUC Parit)
30 Teluk Kepayang 145 8,331.77
31 Sg Kinta 227.3 Direct Supply 208
Sultan Azlan Review of NWRS 2011
Ulu Kinta (MUC Ulu (Sultan Azlan
32 136.38 Shah Dam 208 (JPS, 2011) + simple
Kinta) Shah Dam)
water balance
Terusan Regulated (Bukit computation
33 Gunung Semanggol 130 Sg Kurau 126
Selinsing Merah Dam)
2-14

Plant (WTP) Scheme
(MLD) Study (MLD)
Tasek Besar
Bagan Serai /
34 Jalan Baru 50 Sg Kerian 50
Sg
Semagagah
Low flow frequency
35 Air Terjun 65.38 Sg Temerloh Sg Wang Run-of-river 12.8
analysis
36 Sg Geliting 50 Sg Geliting 229.97
Bernam River
37 Headworks (Lama & 65.5 Sg Bernam Sg Bernam 899.4 Review of NAWABS Sg
Baru) Run-of-river Bernam report (JPS,
2020)
38 Kalumpang 6.7 Sg Inki 24.4
39 Sg Sireh 27 Sg Tengi Sg Tengi 129.2
40 SSP1 950 2,890
41 SSP2 950 Regulated 2,890 Review of IRBM Sg
42 SSP3 800 Sg Selangor (Selangor / Tinggi 2,890 Selangor report (LUAS,
43 Rasa 250 Dam) - 2014) + FDC
Sg Selangor
44 Rantau Panjang 31.5 2,890
45 Selangor Batang Kali 20.3 Sg Batang Kali 65.8
46 Kuala Kubu Bharu 6.7 Sg Kubu 14
Low flow frequency
47 Sg Rangkap 9 Sg Kanching Run-of-river 5.4
analysis
48 Gombak 22.5 Sg Gombak 24.8
49 Ampang Intake 18 Sg Ampang 10.8
Review of Batu Dam
Direct Supply Operating Rule Curve
50 Sg Batu 113.7 Sg Klang Batu Dam 114
(Batu Dam) study report (Air Selangor,
2019)
51 Wangsa Maju 45 Direct Supply 146
Klang Gates Review of IRBM Sg Klang
(Klang Gates
52 Bukit Nanas 145 Dam 146 report (JPS, 2015)
Dam)
2-15
Plant (WTP) Scheme
(MLD) Study (MLD)
Tasik Subang Direct Supply
53 North Hammock 22.5 16
Dam (Subang Dam)
Sg Buloh
Low flow frequency
54 Kepong 4.5 Sg Buloh Run-of-river 1
analysis
Review of Semenyih Dam
Regulated
55 Sg Semenyih 545 Sg Semenyih 559 Storage Prediction Model
(Semenyih Dam)
study report (2015)
Low flow frequency
56 Salak Tinggi 10.8 Sg Labu Run-of-river 30
analysis
Review of IRBM Sg
Langat report (LUAS,
57 Sg Labu 105 Sg Labu ORS -
2015) + FDC + ORS
sustainability
Review of IRBM Sg
58 Sg Langat 386 380 Langat report (LUAS,
2015)
Selangor Sg Langat Regulated Review of IRBM Sg
(Langat Dam) Langat report (LUAS,
59 Cheras Mile 11 27 - 2015) & NWRS (JPS,
2011) & low flow
frequency analysis
Sg Langat Review of IRBM Sg
Langat report (LUAS,
60 Bukit Tampoi 31.5 -
2015) + low flow
Regulated frequency analysis
(Langat /
61 Semenyih 2 100 Semenyih Dam) -
FDC + ORS
62 Labohan Dagang 200 -
sustainability
Review of NWRS 2011

Regulated (Kelau (JPS, 2011) + simple
63 Langat 2 1130 Sg Pahang Sg Semantan -
/ Perting Dam) water balance
computation
2-16

Plant (WTP) Scheme
(MLD) Study (MLD)
64 Sg Semantan 17.28 187.24
Run-of-river
65 Lubuk Kawah 120 4,467.81
66 Ganchong 80 Regulated (Kelau 7,047.59
Sg Pahang
67 Seberang Temerloh 43.2 / Perting Dam) 4,354.42
68 Jengka Utama 31.2 4,457.71
69 Sg Bilut 19.32 Sg Bilut 88.45
70 Kuala Medang 8.4 951.83
Pahang HP 12
71 Bukit Betong 12 Sg Jelai 470.11
72 Sg Jelai 28.8 2,366.67
Run-of-river
73 Benta 12 Sg Lipis 659.94
74 Jengka 3 - 7 11.28 Sg Jempol 145.94
75 Triang 31.92 Sg Triang 802.53
76 Lepar Hilir 14.4 Sg Lepar 369.03
77 Jengka 8 22.9 Sg Tekam 293.09
Review of NWRS 2011
Regulated (JPS, 2011) + simple
78 Bentong Fasa 2 45.46 Sg Perting 126.76
(Perting Dam) water balance
Sg Pahang computation
Low flow frequency
79 Sg Keloi 30.24 Sg Dong 35.35
Run-of-river analysis
80 Pahang Chini 21.6 Sg Peal 9.22 HP 12
81 Panching 168 Review of IRBM Sg
Regulated Kuantan report (JPS,
82 Semambu 288 Sg Kuantan Sg Kuantan 1,859
(Chereh Dam) 2018) + low flow
83 Bukit Ubi 36 frequency analysis
Direct Supply Review of NWRS (JPS,
84 Sepayang 36.36 Sg Pontian Pontian Dam 259
(Pontian Dam) 2011)
2-17
Plant (WTP) Scheme
(MLD) Study (MLD)
85 Keratong 36.32 Sg Rompin Sg Keratong 309.41
86 Bukit Bauk 63.64 Sg Paka Sg Paka 261
HP 12
87 Bukit Bunga 79.55 Sg Besut Sg Besut 188
Sg
88 Bukit Sah 227.27 Sg Kemaman 748
Kemaman
89 Terengganu Hulu Terengganu 55 1,519
90 Kepong I 90 Sg Sg 2,138 Low flow frequency
Run-of-river
91 Kepong II 180 Terengganu Terengganu 2,138 analysis
92 Losong 43.18 2,149

93 Bukit Remah 40 3,025
94 Merbau Chondong 50 Sg Kelantan 2,923
95 Kelantan Kelar 64 Sg Kelantan 2,712 HP 12
96 Sg Ketil 16 Sg Ketil 32
97 Pahi 21 Sg Pahi 43
Low flow frequency
98 Sg Linggi 136.36 Sg Linggi Run-of-river -
analysis
Regulated (Ulu
99 Sawah Raja 50 Sg Rembau -
Sepri Dam)
Direct Supply
Sg Linggi Triang Dam /
100 Ngoi-Ngoi 136.36 (Triang Dam) / -
Petaseh
Negeri Run-of-river
Sembilan Sg Terip Dam Direct supply (Sg
2011) & simple water
101 Sg Terip 304.55 / Sg Batang Terip Dam) / Run- -
balance computation
Penar of-river
Direct supply
Gemencheh
(Gemencheh
102 Gemencheh 45.45 Sg Muar Dam / Sg -
Dam) / Run-of-
Asahan
river
2-18

Plant (WTP) Scheme
(MLD) Study (MLD)
103 Jempol 54.55 -
Review of Kajian Sumber
104 Kuala Jelai 113.65 Regulated - Air Negeri Johor (BAKAJ,
Sg Muar
105 Gemas Baru 36.36 (Talang Dam) - 2015) + low flow
frequency analysis + FDC
106 Palong Timur 6.82 -
Regulated
107 Air Panas (A + C) 25.54 Sg Juaseh -
(Juaseh Dam)
108 Bukit Serampang 4.55 -
109 Grisek 62.2 Regulated - Review of Kajian Sumber
Sg Muar Air Negeri Johor (BAKAJ,
110 Gombang 3.18 (Talang Dam) -
2015) + low flow
111 Pancor (1 - 4) 103.63 410 frequency analysis
112 Bukit Hampar 14.18 -
Regulated
Kampung Tengah (Juaseh Dam)
113 44.36 Sg Segamat -
(1 + 2)
114 Pemanis 2.27 - HP 12
Johor
Sg Je Run-of-river Low flow frequency
115 Jementah 2.27 -
mentah analysis
Direct Supply
Gunung Air Negeri Johor (2010-
116 Gunung Ledang 13.64 (Gunung Ledang -
Ledang Dam 2060) report (BAKAJ,
Dam)
2015)
117 Bandar Tenggara 27.26 Sg Pengeli 41.5 Review of Kajian Sumber
Air Negeri Johor (BAKAJ,
118 Batu 2 3.18 Sg Pelepah 4.03 2015) + low flow
frequency analysis
Sg Johor Run-of-river
119 Sg Sayong 1 13.64 120 Review of Kajian Sumber
Sg Sayong
120 Sg Sayong 2 31.82 120 2015) & NWRS (JPS,
2011)
2-19
Plant (WTP) Scheme
(MLD) Study (MLD)
121 Semangar 318.23 - Review of Kajian Sumber
122 Sg Johor 318.23 -
Regulated 2015), draft concept report
Sg Johor
(Linggiu Dam) of Projek Pembangunan
123 Linggiu 1.82 - ORS Sg Johor (BBA,
2020) + FDC
Direct Supply
Upper & Lower
124 Sg Layang 358 (Upper & Lower 138.23
Layang Dam
Layang Dam)
Direct Supply
125 Sg Lebam 54.55 Lebam Dam 44
(Lebam Dam)
Sembrong Direct Supply
126 Sembrong Barat 80 - Air Negeri Johor (BAKAJ,
Dam (Sembrong Dam)
Sg Batu 2015)
127 Parit Raja 4 63.64 Lagoon -
Pahat Direct Supply
Sembrong /
128 Sri Gading 72.1 (Bekok Dam) -
Bekok Dam
Johor Direct Supply
129 Endau 10 Labong Dam -
(Labong Dam)
130 Nitar 4.55 Sg Lenggor Run-of-river 149
HP 12
131 Kahang Baru 3.18 -
Sg Endau Review of NWRS 2011
Regulated
Sg Kahang (JPS, 2011) and simple
132 Kahang Timor 5.46 (Kahang Dam) -
water balance
computation
133 Sembrong Timor 26.16 Sg Sembrong -
Sg Sedili HP 12
134 Lok Heng 5.46 Sg Sedili Kecil -
Kecil
135 Mersing Baru 10 Sg Mersing Sg Mersing Run-of-river -
Low flow frequency
136 Skudai 68.19 Sg Skudai Sg Skudai 59.4
analysis
137 Sg Gembut 9.09 Sg Sedili Sg Gembut 30.3 HP 12
2-20

Plant (WTP) Scheme
(MLD) Study (MLD)
Besar Sg Sedili
138 Tenggaroh 11.37 65.3
Besar
Review of NWRS 2011
Regulated (JPS, 2011) and simple
139 Simpang Renggam 64 Sg Benut Sg Benut -
(Machap Dam) water balance
computation
Johor
Direct Supply
Pontian Kecil /
(Pontian Kecil / Review of Kajian Sumber
140 Gunung Pulai 81.83 Sg Pulai Pulai 1 / Pulai -
Pulai 1 / Pulai 2 Air Negeri Johor (2010-
2 Dam
Dam) 2060) report (BAKAJ,
Sg Tenglu Direct Supply 2015)
141 Tenglu 15 Congok Dam 15
Besar (Congok Dam)
Review of NWRS 2011
Direct Supply (JPS, 2011) and simple
142 Asahan 4.5 Asahan Dam -
(Asahan Dam) water balance
Sg Kesang computation
143 Chin-Chin 20 9.9 HP 12
Sg Kesang Run-of-river Low flow frequency
144 Merlimau 55 76.3
analysis
145 Bertam DAF I 120 - Review of NAWABS Sg
Direct Supply
Durian Melaka report (JPS, 2020)
(Durian Tunggal
146 Melaka Bertam DAF II 120 Tunggal Dam - and simple water balance
Dam)
computation
Sg Batang Regulated (Jus
147 Gadek 55 74
Melaka Dam)
Sg Melaka
Regulated (Jus /
Review of NAWABS Sg
148 Bertam 182 Sg Melaka Durian Tunggal -
Melaka report (JPS, 2020)
Dam)
+ FDC
Sg Melaka Regulated (Jus /
149 Sebukor 68 bunded Durian Tunggal -
storage Dam)
W. P. Kampung Lawa Low flow frequency
150 76 Sg Padas Sg Padas Run-of-river -
Labuan Gadong, Beaufort analysis
2-21
2.4 Yield Assessment
The yield assessment for the study intakes have been carried out using the methods as tabulated
in Table 2-3. The details of the assessment using various methods are described in the following
sub-sections. The schematic diagrams for all intakes/WTP in this Study are presented in
Appendix A.
2.4.1 Yield Assessment using Hydrological Procedure No. 12 (HP 12)
As mentioned in Section 2.2, the hydrological yield (7Q50) for run-of-river schemes where the
previous nett reliable yield obtained from the NWRS 2011 study is much bigger compared to its
design capacity, or with fairly large intake catchment area, were derived using the HP 12 (JPS,
2015).
The application of the HP 12 (JPS, 2015) is constrained by the nature of the data used to derive it.
Thus, its application should be confined to catchments that satisfy the following criteria:
i. The catchment must be rural in nature

ii. The flow must be natural, without regulation by any control structure
Equation below was used for the mean annual minimum 7-day flow estimation according to
individual intake catchment mean annual rainfall:
Q 7 = 2.423 ∗ 10-11 ∗ A0.984 ∗ R2.658
Where, Q 7 = Mean annual minimum 7-day flow

A = Catchment area (km 2)
R = Mean annual catchment rainfall (mm)
The 7Q50 was derived by multiplying the computed mean annual minimum 7-day flow with the
respective dimensionless regional growth factor of the intake (refer Table 2-4 for growth factor of
various L-moment regions)
Table 2-4: Dimensionless growth factors for various L-moment regions
Region Growth Factor

Region 1 0.154
Region 2 0.202
Region 3 0.089
Region 4 0.077
Region 5 0.097
Region 6 0.188
2-22
Region Growth Factor

Region 7 0.127
Region 8 0.182
Region 9 0.058
Out of the 150 study intakes, the hydrological yield of 35 intakes was estimated by using HP 12
(JPS, 2015). Table 2-5 shows the details and results of yield derivation using HP 12 (JPS, 2015)
for the 35 intakes. From the results of HP 12 (JPS, 2015), all the 35 intakes are sufficient to meet
the raw water requirement of the WTPs.
2-23
Table 2-5: Summary of yield assessment results using HP 12 (JPS, 2015)
Catchment 7Q50 Upstream Abstraction(s) Nett 7Q50

Raw Water Water Intake
Water Treatment Water Annual Sufficiency
No. State Requirement River Basin Supply Catchment
Plant (WTP) Source Rainfall of Yield
(MLD) Scheme Area (km²) Abstraction
(mm) m³/s MLD WTP m³/s MLD
(MLD)
Lubuk Buntar Loji Air Mahang 9.9

1 Kedah Baru (25) + Lama 68.57 Sg Kerian Sg Kerian Run-of-river 1,126 2,901 3.6 309 3.4 291.96 Yes
(34.1)
Klian Gunung 7.14
2 Perak Sg Kampar 38.19 Sg Perak Sg Kampar Run-of-river 380 2,619 0.94 81.5 - - 0.94 81.5 Yes
3 Sg Semantan 18.14 Sg Semantan Run-of-river 393 2,521 0.95 82 Bukit Fraser 4.54 0.9 77.5 Yes
Kuala Terla / Brinchang 2.39

Merapoh 5.04
Sg Temau 2.52
Kg Bantal 1.82
Kuala Tahan 9.45
Kuala Medang 8.82
Bukit Betong 12.6
Sg Jelai 30.24
Kecau 10.08
Batu 9 0.5
Seberang Tembeling 5.04
Mela 6.3
Pahang Sg Pahang Padang Piol 2.82
Hulu Sungai 2.65
4 Lubuk Kawah 126 Sg Pahang Run-of-river 16,218 2,491 35.8 3,096 31.9 2,754 Yes
Tersang 5.7
Benta 12.6
Sg Semantan 18.1
Sg Keloi 31.8
Batu Balai 7.6
Batu Embun Fasa 3 18.9
Kota Gelanggi 3.5
Sg Tekam Utara 15.1
Jengka 8 24.1
Felda Jenderak Utara 9.5
Jenderak Kg 11.8
Jengka Utama 32.8
Batu Sawar 21.2
Regulated Kuala Terla / Brinchang 2.4
(Kelau /
5 Pahang Ganchong* 84 Sg Pahang Sg Pahang 28,533 2,338 53.1 4,586 Merapoh 5 42.4 3,660 Yes
Perting
Dam) Sg Temau 2.5
2-25
(MLD)
Kg Bantal 1.8
Kuala Tahan 9.5
Kuala Medang 8.8
Bukit Betong 12.6
Sg Jelai 30.2
Kecau 10.1
Batu 9 0.5
Seberang Tembeling 5
Mela 6.3
Padang Piol 2.8
Hulu Sungai 2.7
Tersang 5.7
Benta 12.6
Sg Semantan 18.1
Sg Keloi 31.8
Batu Balai 7.6
Kota Gelanggi 3.5
Sg Tekam Utara 15.1
Jengka 8 24.1
Jenderak Kg 11.8
Jengka Utama 32.8
Batu Sawar 21.2
Sg Gapoi 21
Janda Baik 27.7
Karak 8.3
Bentong Fasa 2 47.7
Mempatih 11.2
Mempaga 9.6
Lurah Bilut 7.8
Sg Kelau 10.8
Teras 3.9
Sg Bilut 20.3
Lubuk Kawah 126
Seberang Temerloh 45.4
Kuala Klawang 8.6
Titi 11.9
Lakai 14.3
2-26

(MLD)
Kg Jawi-Jawi 9.6
Triang 33.5
Sg Bera 18.1
Sg Bera Felda 9.5
Bera Kompleks 13.1
Chenor 9.8
Kertau 5.8
Simpang Jengka 14.1
Pekan Tajau 17.1
Jengka 3-7 11.8
Ulu Jempol 15.8
Belimbing 4.4
Lepar Utara 4.5
Lepar Hilir 15.1
Lepar 5.5
Chini 22.7
Merapoh 5
Sg Temau 2.5
Kg Bantal 1.8
Kuala Tahan 9.5
Kuala Medang 8.8
Bukit Betong 12.6
Sg Jelai 30.2
Kecau 10.1
Batu 9 0.5
Regulated
Seberang (Kelau / Mela 6.3
6 Pahang 45.36 Sg Pahang Sg Pahang 19,181 2,446 40.3 3,484 33 2,848 Yes
Temerloh* Perting Padang Piol 2.8
Dam)
Hulu Sungai 2.7
Tersang 5.7
Benta 12.6
Sg Semantan 18.1
Sg Keloi 31.8
Batu Balai 7.6
Kota Gelanggi 3.5
Sg Tekam Utara 15.1
Jengka 8 24.1
2-27
(MLD)
Jenderak Kg 11.8
Jengka Utama 32.8
Batu Sawar 21.2
Sg Gapoi 21
Janda Baik 27.7
Karak 8.3
Bentong Fasa 2 47.7
Mempatih 11.2
Mempaga 9.6
Lurah Bilut 7.8
Sg Kelau 10.8
Teras 3.9
Sg Bilut 20.3
Lubuk Kawah 126
Merapoh 5
Sg Temau 2.5
Kg Bantal 1.8
Kuala Tahan 9.5
Kuala Medang 8.8
Bukit Betong 12.6
Sg Jelai 30.2
Kecau 10.1
Batu 9 0.5
Mela 6.3
7 Pahang Jengka Utama 32.76 Sg Pahang Sg Pahang Run-of-river 15,865 2,502 35.5 3,064 Padang Piol 2.8 32.1 2,777 Yes
Hulu Sungai 2.7
Tersang 5.7
Benta 12.6
Sg Semantan 18.1
Sg Keloi 31.8
Batu Balai 7.6
Kota Gelanggi 3.5
Sg Tekam Utara 15.1
Jengka 8 24.1
2-28

(MLD)
Jenderak Kg 11.8
8 Sg Bilut 20.29 Sg Bilut 168 2,210 0.29 25.4 Teras 3.9 0.25 21.5 Yes
9 Kuala Medang 8.82 2,620 2,448 5.7 492 Kuala Terla / Brinchang 2.4 5.7 489.9 Yes
10 Bukit Betong 12.6 2,832 2,457 6.2 537 6.1 525.4 Yes
Kuala Medang 8.8
Sg Jelai
Kuala Medang 8.8
11 Sg Jelai 30.24 4,431 2,460 9.7 836 Merapoh 5 9.3 804.9 Yes
Sg Temau 2.5
Bukit Betong 12.6
Hulu Sungai 2.7
Tersang 5.7
12 Pahang Benta 12.6 Sg Pahang Sg Lipis Run-of-river 1,717 2,452 3.8 326 Bukit Fraser 4.5 3 263.3 Yes
Sg Semantan 18.1
Sg Keloi 31.8
13 Jengka 3 - 7 11.84 Sg Jempol 285 2,421 0.62 53.9 Ulu Jempol 15.8 0.44 38.1 Yes
Kuala Klawang 8.6

Titi 11.9
14 Triang 33.52 Sg Triang 1,941 1,909 2.2 194 1.7 149 Yes
Lakai 14.3
Kg Jawi-Jawi 9.6
15 Lepar Hilir 15.12 Sg Lepar 854 2,772 2.6 225 Lepar Utara 4.5 2.5 220 Yes
Kota Gelanggi 3.5
16 Jengka 8 24.05 Sg Tekam 721 2,500 1.7 146 1.5 127.5 Yes
Sg Tekam Utara 15.1
17 Chini Mentiga 22.68 Sg Peal 207 2,166 0.34 29.6 - - 0.34 29.6 Yes
18 Pahang Keratong 38.14 Sg Rompin Sg Keratong Run-of-river 736 2,289 1.4 119 - - 1.4 118.8 Yes
Sg Paka /
19 Bukit Bauk 70 Sg Paka Durian 716 3,209 2 173 - - 2 173 Yes
Mentagau
20 Terengganu Bukit Bunga 87.51 Sg Besut Sg Besut Run-of-river 662 2,963 1.5 131 - - 1.5 131 Yes
21 Bukit Sah 250 Sg Kemaman Sg Kemaman 1,732 3,019 4.1 353 Cherul 15.02 3.9 338 Yes
Sg Ketil 16.8
Panggung Lalat 0.53
Chiku 8.4
22 Bukit Remah 42 Sg Kelantan Sg Kelantan Run-of-river 12,341 2,548 26.1 2,259 Aring 0.53 24.7 2,137 Yes
Kelantan
Limau Kasturi 6.3
Bertam Baru 0.53
Dabong / Stong 2.1
2-29
(MLD)
Manek Urai 8.8
Kuala Balah 6.3
Pahi 26
Tualang 31.5
Kuala Tiga 1.58
Jeli 12.6
Sg Ketil 16.8
Panggung Lalat 0.53
Chiku 8.4
Aring 0.53
Limau Kasturi 6.3
Bertam Baru 0.53
Merbau Dabong / Stong 2.1
23 52.5 12,633 2,556 27 2,330 25.1 2,166 Yes
Chondong Manek Urai 8.8
Kuala Balah 6.3
Pahi 26
Tualang 31.5
Kuala Tiga 1.58
Jeli 12.6
Bkt Remah 42
Sg Ketil 16.8
Panggung Lalat 0.53
Chiku 8.4
Aring 0.53
Limau Kasturi 6.3
Bertam Baru 0.53
Dabong / Stong 2.1
24 Kelar 67.2 Sg Kelantan 12,736 2,553 27.1 2,342 Manek Urai 8.8 24.6 2,126 Yes
Sg Kelantan Run-of-river Kuala Balah 6.3
Pahi 26
Tualang 31.5
Kuala Tiga 1.58
Jeli 12.6
Bkt Remah 42
Merbau Chondong 52.5
25 Sg Ketil 16.8 Sg Ketil 157 2,395 0.31 26.3 - - 0.31 26.3 Yes
26 Pahi 26 Sg Lebir 215 2,510 0.47 40.4 - - 0.47 40.4 Yes
27 Pemanis 2.38 Sg Muar Sg Segamat 170 2,179 0.22 18.9 - - 0.22 18.9 Yes
Johor Run-of-river
28 Nitar 4.78 Sg Endau Sg Lenggor 451 2,796 1.1 93.4 - - 1.1 93.4 Yes
2-30

(MLD)
29 Kahang Baru 3.34 Sg Kahang 272 2,435 0.46 39.9 Kahang Timor 5.73 0.4 34.2 Yes
30 Sembrong Timor 27.47 Sg Sembrong 208 2,332 0.32 27.3 - - 0.32 27.3 Yes
31 Lok Heng 8.45 Sg Sedili Kecil Sg Sedili Kecil 73 2,700 0.17 14.3 - - 0.17 14.3 Yes
32 Mersing Baru 10.5 Sg Mersing Sg Mersing 57 2,894 0.16 13.4 - - 0.16 13.4 Yes
33 Sg Gembut 11.39 Sg Gambut 76 2,700 0.17 14.8 - - 0.17 14.8 Yes

Sg Sedili
Besar Sg Sedili
34 Tenggaroh 11.94 570 2,697 1.2 107 - - 1.2 107 Yes
Besar
35 Melaka Chin-Chin 21 Sg Kesang Sg Kesang Run-of-river 401 1,754 0.29 25.2 - - 0.29 25.2 Yes
Remarks: - indicates no upstream potable abstraction
* Yield assessment using HP 12 was carried out for the study intake regulated by Kelau and Perting Dam as the dam catchments are relatively small compared to intake catchment. Yield is sufficient for the study intake
even by assuming that there is no regulation by the upstream dams.
2-31
2.4.2 Yield Assessment using Low Flow Frequency Analysis
The hydrological yield for run-of-river schemes were re-computed using low flow frequency
analysis for intakes with the previous nett reliable yield obtained from NWRS 2011 study is lower
than its design capacity or was found to be insufficient using the HP 12 computed value. The low
flow frequency curve for intake pont is derived by fitting a theoretical frequency distribution to the
recorded annual minimum 7-day low flows using L-moment.
Prior to the derivation of annual minimum 7-day flow series, estimation of flow availability at intake
points is necessary. Two flow estimation methods were used in this Study:
i. Flow transposition – for ungagued intakes where suitable gauged streamflow data are
available at other locations; and
ii. Rainfall-runoff modelling – for ungauged catchment with no streamflow data suitable for
flow transposition.
Out of the 150 study intakes, the flow availability at 17 intakes was estimated using flow
transposition method by adjusting for catchment area and rainfall differences while rainfall-runoff
modelling was carried out for 11 intakes using Thornthwaite and Mather Daily Water Balance
Model (TM-WBM) as described in JPS’s Water Resources Publication No. 12: Average Annual
and Monthly Surface Water Resources of Peninsular Malaysia (1982).
Similar as yield estimation using HP 12 (JPS, 2015), the existing potable water abstractions at the
upstream of the intake point have been considered in derivation of nett yield.
The details and results of hydrological yield derivation using low flow frequency analysis are
presented in Table 2-6 and Table 2-7 for flow transposition and TM-WBM respectively. The
worked examples of low flow frequency analysis are shown in Appendix B.
.
2-33
Table 2-6: Summary of yield assessment results using low flow frequency analysis (flow transposition)
Intake
Key Streamflow Station Upstream Abstraction(s) Nett 7Q50
Water Raw Water Catchment
River Water Transposition Sufficiency
No. State Treatment Requirement Annual Annual
Basin Source Area Area Losses Factor, C Abstraction of Yield
Plant (WTP) (MLD) Rainfall Station Name Rainfall WTP m³/s MLD
(km²) (km²) (mm) (MLD)
(mm) (mm)
1 Kedah Sg Ular 45.76 55 2,901 0.46 - - 0.18 15 No
Sg Kulim at
Pulau Sg Perai Sg Kulim 129 2,810 1,333
2 Bukit Toh Allang 71.4 130 2,815 Ara Kuda 1.01 - - 0.39 33.7 No
Pinang
Sg Batang
3 174 2,614 0.55 - -
Bukit Temoh 142.8 Padang 1.83 158.0 Yes
Sg Sungkai at
4 Sg Woh 104 2,850 289 2,760 1,162 0.38 - -
Sungkai
5 Hilir Perak 114.45 Sg Sungkai 420 3,085 1.75 - - 3.5 298 Yes
Sultan Idris
Kampung Paloh 80.64 9,290 2,308 Shah II 286.41 94.7 8,180 Yes
(MUC Parit)
Sultan Idris
Perak Sg Perak
6 Shah II (MUC 286.41 9,190 2,309 - - 98.0 8,466 Yes
Parit)
Sg Perak at
7,770 2,180 1,242 - Sultan Idris
Jam. Iskandar
Shah II 286.41
Sg Perak
(MUC Parit)
8 Teluk Kepayang 152.25 9,342 2,309 Kampung 93.3 8,063 Yes
80.64
Paloh
Kampung
35.84
Senin
Sg Gombak at
9 Selangor Gombak 32.17 Sg Klang Sg Gombak 65 2,500 Jln. Tun 122 2,420 979 0.56 Sg Rumput 4.73 0.12 10.1 No
Razak
Sg Sg Lipis at
10 Pahang Sg Keloi 31.75 Sg Dong 124 2,007 1,670 2,255 1,464 0.05 - - 0.17 14.8 No
Pahang Benta
Hulu
11 60.5 2,746 3,661 1.08 - - 47.3 4,087 Yes
Terengganu
Hulu
12 Kepong I 99 3,762 3,679 60.5 43.1 3,724 Yes
Terengganu
Sg Hulu
Sg 60.5
13 Kepong II 198 Sg 3,762 3,679 Terengganu at Terengganu 42.0 3,625 Yes
Terengganu Terengga 3,340 2,955 744
Terengganu Kampung Kepong I 99
nu -
Tanggol Hulu
60.5
Terengganu
14 Losong 60.5 3,797 3,673 Kepong I 99 39.7 3,427 Yes
Kepong II 198
Negeri Sg Linggi di
15 Sg Linggi 143.18 Sg Linggi Sg Linggi 304 1,863 505 1,917 876 0.57 - - 0.48 41.8 No
Sembilan Sua Betong
Sg Sg Kesang at
16 Melaka Merlimau 57.75 Sg Kesang 568 1,797 161 1,725 1,280 4.10 Chin-Chin 21 0.29 24.9 No
Kesang Chin-Chin
17 W. P. Kampung Lawa 80.83 Sg Padas Sg Padas 8,805 2,262 Sg Padas at 8,679 2,246 1,413 1.03 - 0 6.3 542 Yes
2-35
Intake
Key Streamflow Station Upstream Abstraction(s) Nett 7Q50
Water Raw Water Catchment
River Water Transposition Sufficiency
No. State Treatment Requirement Annual Annual
Basin Source Area Area Losses Factor, C Abstraction of Yield
Plant (WTP) (MLD) Rainfall Station Name Rainfall WTP m³/s MLD
(km²) (km²) (mm) (MLD)
(mm) (mm)
Labuan Gadong, Beaufort JPS
Beaufort
Remarks: - indicates no upstream potable abstraction
Table 2-7: Summary of yield assessment results using low flow frequency analysis (TM-WBM)
Upstream
Raw Water Intake Rainfall Station Evaporation Station Nett 7Q50
Water Treatment Abstraction(s) Sufficiency
No. State Requirement River Basin Water Source Catchment
Plant (WTP) Station Station Abstraction of Yield
(MLD) Area (km²) Station Name Station Name WTP m³/s MLD
ID ID (MLD)
1 Bukit Tupah 18.9 Sg Merbok Sg Bujang 10.0 5704057 Ibu Bekalan Tupah 5903351 Pintu Kawalan P/S Kuala Sala - - 0.02 1.5 No
Kedah
2 Baling Baru (10 + 5.5) 23.22 Sg Muda Sg Baling 6.3 5608074 Pulai 6108301 Kompleks Rumah Muda - - 0.01 1.0 No
3 Perak Air Terjun 68.65 Sg Temerloh Sg Wang 15.9 4708082 Ldg. Bkt. Berapit 5005304 Bagan Serai - - 0.06 4.9 No
Kampung Kalong
4 Batang Kali 21.32 Sg Batang Kali 103 3416002 3516322 Loji Air Kuala Kubu Bahru - - 0.56 48.3 Yes
Tengah
Sg Selangor Loji Air Kuala
5 Kuala Kubu Bharu 7.04 Sg Kubu 1.6 3516022 3516322 Loji Air Kuala Kubu Bahru - - 0.006 0.48 No
Kubu Bahru
6 Sg Rangkap 9.45 Sg Kanching 9.3 3316028 Ldg. Sg. Gapi 3516322 Loji Air Kuala Kubu Bahru - - 0.03 2.76 No
Selangor Pemasokan
7 Ampang Intake 18.9 Sg Klang Sg Ampang 17.1 3118069 3516322 Loji Air Kuala Kubu Bahru - - 0.06 4.8 No
Ampang
Pusat
8 Kepong 4.73 Sg Buloh Sg Buloh 1.6 3115079 Penyelidikan 3516322 Loji Air Kuala Kubu Bahru - - 0.004 0.39 No
Getah Sg. Buloh
Setor JPS Sikamat di Sg
9 Salak Tinggi 11.34 Sg Langat Sg Labu 220 2717114 Ldg. Bute 2719301 110.25 0.21 18.2 Yes
Seremban Labu
Stn. Pertanian
10 Jementah 3.13 Sg Muar Sg Jementah 19.8 2426005 2025301 Pintu Kawalan Tg. Agas - - 0.04 3.4 Yes
Jementah
Johor
Ldg. Senai di
11 Skudai 77.38 Sg Skudai Sg Skudai 189 1536110 1539301 Loji Air Sg. Layang - - 0.75 64.5 No
Senai
Remarks:
 - indicates no upstream potable abstraction
 For all the intakes that is insufficient in yield based on the flow derived using the TM-WBM, the yield derivation using HP 12 also shows consistent result.
2-36
There are two groups of intakes located at the downstream of the hydropower schemes in Sg
Terengganu and Sg Perak. The Sultan Idris Shah II (MUC Parit), Kampung Paloh, Teluk
Kepayang WTP intakes are located at the downstream of the Chenderoh Hydropower scheme
while the Kepong I, II and Losong WTP intakes are located at the downstream of Kenyir
Hydropower scheme. Streamflow station located at the downstream of the respective hydropower
station but upstream of these group of intakes were used directly for the low flow frequency
analysis to derive the available yield for the intakes. Despite there is control structure at the
upstream of the intakes, the constant release from these base load hydropower scheme has been
passing through the streamflow stations and indirectly regulate the intakes downstream since their
commencement to date. The considerably long records at the streamflow stations are hence
representative the hydrological regime after the commencement of the hydropower schemes and
could be used for the yield assessment.
From the results of low flow frequency analysis, the nett yield for 14 out of the 28 intakes is
insufficient to meet the raw water requirement of the WTPs (see Table 2-8).
Table 2-8: List of WTPs with insufficient yield from the low flow frequency analysis
No. State Water Treatment Plant (WTP)

1 Bukit Tupah
2 Kedah Baling Baru (10 + 5.5)
3 Sg Ular
4 Pulau Pinang Bukit Toh Allang
5 Perak Air Terjun
6 Kuala Kubu Bharu
7 Sg Rangkap
8 Selangor Gombak
9 Ampang Intake
10 Kepong
11 Pahang Sg Keloi
12 Negeri Sembilan Sg Linggi
13 Johor Skudai
14 Melaka Merlimau
2.4.3 Yield Assessment based on Review of Previous Studies Report
As mentioned in Section 2.2, review of previous studies or design report have been carried out to
assess the sufficiency of yield at study intakes involving direct supply, regulating schemes or
complex scheme; with previous studies made available.
For these schemes, yield assessment has been carried out based on the findings from these
reports. Additional analysis was carried out to substantiate the findings from the studies in the
event the findings from the previous studies were found to be insufficient to provide the conclusion
on the yield at the intake.
2-37
2.4.3.1 Sg Perlis Basin – IRBM Sg Perlis (JPS, 2010), NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and
Additional Analysis
Timah Tasoh WTP is located in Sg Perlis Basin. Within the basin, there are another two WTPs,
namely Arau Fasa 1, 2 & 3 and Arau Fasa 4 which abstract water from the MADA North Canal in
Sg Kedah Basin. TImah Tasoh WTP is a direct supply storage scheme which receives water from
Timah Tasoh Dam. The dam was completed in 1992 with an active storage of 33.33 MCM. In
2011, the dam has been raised to 3.5 m high which increases its storage to 87 MCM to cater for
potable, irrigation and industrial supply and flood storage. Operating a dam to maximise water
supply normally conflicts with operating it to store and mitigate flood. To solve this, two flood
bypasses have been planned as mentioned in the IRBM Sg Perlis, 2010. One bypass, Timah
Tasoh West Flood Diversion has been completed in 2017. The 22 km long bypass conveys the
water released from Timah Tasoh Dam into the Melaka Straits.
The yield of Timah Tasoh WTP was assessed based on storage sustainability. Timah Tasoh WTP
is the only WTP supplied by the dam and during drought, the water requirement of 73.5 MLD for
this WTP will be prioritized. With an active storage of 87 MCM, Timah Tasoh Dam is able to
supply to Timah Tasoh WTP for 1,184 days. The actual storage of the dam for water supply is
unknown without the information from the design report. Assuming 25% of the full supply level
allocated for flood storage, the water supply storage for the dam is 65 MCM. This storage can
sustain the Timah Tasoh WTP demand for 884 days. This is sufficient to cater for the dry months
in northern region which usually last for about four months from December until January to March
of the subsequent year.
2.4.3.2 Sg Kedah Basin – NAWABS Sg Kedah (JPS, 2019/2020)
Sg Kedah, with a basin area of 3,776 km 2 is a very important water source for both potable and
non-potable water demand in Kedah and Perlis. Paddy irrigation is the major water user in the
basin corresponding to the demand from Muda Agricultural Development Authority (MADA)
Scheme, the largest granary area in Malaysia. The 100,685 ha scheme spread across Kedah and
Perlis, and irrigated through Muda Irrigation Scheme. The basin is also the main source for
potable water supply for both states.
There are nine WTPs in Kedah and three WTPs in Perlis which are depending on water from the
Sg Kedah Basin, as tabulated in Table 2-9 below. WTPs in Kedah and Perlis are operated by
Syarikat Air Darul Aman Sdn. Bhd. (SADA) and Syarikat Air Perlis Sdn. Bhd. (SAP) respectively.
Of this, eight WTPs were selected for yield assessment under this Study (shown with * in Table
2-9)
2-38
Table 2-9: Water treatment plants using water from Sg Kedah basin
Design
No. State WTP Water Source District served Capacity
(MLD)
Kubang Pasu, Kota
1 *Pelubang Sg Padang Terap 227
Setar
2 Kuala Nerang Sg Pedu Padang Terap 30
Kubang Pasu, Kota
3 *Padang Sanai Sg Ahning 50
Setar
4 Bukit Jenun MADA South Canal Pendang, Yan 30.3
5 Kedah Jeragan Sg Temin Kubang Pasu 9.1
MADA Central
6 *Bukit Pinang Kota Setar 136.4
Canal
*Bukit Jenun
7 MADA South Canal Kuala Muda, Yan 55
Baru
MADA Central
8 *Pokok Sena Pokok Sena 30
Canal
Perlis
9 (supplying *Sg Baru MADA Arau Canal Langkawi 55
to Kedah)
*Arau Fasa I, II, Oran, Chupping, Arau,
10 MADA North Canal 52
III Beseri, Jelempok
Kangar, Kuala Perlis,
*Arau Fasa IV
11 Perlis MADA North Canal Chuping, Beseri, Jejawi, 123
(Kg Sena)
Santan, Utan Aji, Pauh
Spg. Empat, Sanglang,
12 Sg Baru TTPC MADA Arau Canal 56
Sg. Baru
Total Design Capacity 853.8
Remarks: * WTP selected for yield assessment in this Study
The schematic diagram of the existing water resources system in Sg Kedah Basin is shown in
Figure 2-3 below. There are two dams located upstream of the basin, namely Ahning Dam and
Pedu Dam. Both dams are operating to supply water to the downstream Muda Irrigation Scheme
and potable water intakes. Ahning Dam has a capacity of 275 MCM and a catchment area of 122
km2. Currently water from Ahning Dam is not actively being used due to water quality issues,
instead it is used as a backup storage during water shortage. Pedu Dam is a far larger dam, has a
catchment area of 171 km 2, and an active storage of 1,080 MCM. The dam is designed to store
water from its own catchment and also to receive water from Muda Dam in Sg Muda basin. The
water is transferred through a 6.8 km Saiong Tunnel with a capacity of 42.5 m3/s. Muda Dam has
a very large catchment of 984 km 2, however it is unable to store much water due to its smaller
storage of 160 MCM.
2-39
Source: NAWABS Sg Kedah (JPS, 2019/2020)
Figure 2-3: Schematic diagram of water resources system in Sg Kedah Basin
There is no direct mention on the sufficiency of the yield for each WTP intakes in the Sg Kedah
supply system and those that abstract water from the Northern and Central / Southern Canal.
Analysis on the overall existing water resources condition, with and without proposed water
resources development scheme were carried out in the NAWABS study considering the overall
system in the Sg Kedah Basin. The water resources development was identified based on the on-
going development within the basin and also the proposed source works to increase the yield in
the basin such as Jeniang transfer scheme, Sari Dam and coastal reservoir. The assessments
were modelled using MIKE Hydro Basin model under the 1 in 5-year and 1 in 50-year drought
conditions. Most of the proposed source works are meant to augment the yield for the irrigation
scheme which will indirectly benefit the potable water intakes as well.
The discussion meant for this Study shall only consider the 50-year drought condition based on
the basis of the design for potable supply intake. The summary of the dam yield analysis under the
50-year drought condition is presented in Table 2-10 below. The analysis however did not include
the irrigation water demand as the irrigation water supply will be terminated if potable water is at
stake under the drought of 50-year ARI. Considering the total WTP demand of 986 MLD (853.8
MLD with 15% losses) as shown in Table 2-9, it is obvious that the yield for all the WTPs using
2-40
water from Sg Kedah basin and the Muda Irrigation Canal are currently sufficient with cumulative
nett reliable yield of 9,351 MLD.
Table 2-10: Summary of dam yield analysis for 1 in 50-year drought sequence
Existing, On Going and Proposed Additional Cumulative Nett

Scenario
Water Source Works Yield (MLD) Reliable Yield (MLD)
1 Existing - 9,351
2 Jeniang Transfer 3,790 13,142
3 Sari Dam 23 9,375
4 Coastal Reservoir 222 9,574
Jeniang Transfer + Sari Dam + Coastal
5 3,898 13,250
Reservoir
Note:
The cumulative nett yield for the overall Sg Kedah system was derived based on the followings
assumptions:
 Maximum capacity of Saiong Tunnel transfer of 42.5 is adopted for inter-basin transfer
from Muda Dam to Pedu Dam under the Existing Scenario
 Total water treatment capacity is 986 MLD, where losses factor of 10% and 5% were
applied as plant loss and regulating loss respectively
 Environmental flow at Sg Kedah river mouth is 10.57 m3/s
 Maximum capacity of inter-basin transfer of 44 m³/s from Naok Dam into Sg Kedah Basin
is adopted based on 1 in 50-year rainfall drought analysis under the scenario of Jeniang
transfer
As all the intakes are regulated by the dams, the release of both Ahning and Pedu Dams are
based on the minimum operating level (MOL) at each intake set by SADA. The water level at the
intakes must be maintained higher than the MOL in order for the pumps to operate so that the raw
water can be abstracted from the river to the WTPs.
No additional analysis to determine the yield at each individual intake is deemed required to be
carried out considering the priority that should be given to the potable water demand over
irrigation demand during drought, and the vast amount of cumulative nett yield of 9,315 MLD prior
to fulfilling the irrigation demand, the yield in Sg Kedah basin is sufficient for the potable water
supply purpose.
With these findings from the comprehensive NAWABS study, it is therefore concluded that
the all the eight studied WTP intakes are able to supply to the required raw water
requirement. The NAWABS Sg Kedah also shows that with Jeniang transfer implemented,
there will be additional 3,790 MLD yield made available to the overall system.
2.4.3.3 Sg Melaka Basin (Langkawi) – NWRS 2011 and Additional Analysis
Padang Saga Fasa 3 WTP which is located in Langkawi is having raw water requirement of 28.83
MLD. The intake of this WTP has been constructed at Sg Melaka near Padang Mat Sirat, with a
2-41
bunded storage of 0.11 MCM storage capacity constructed alongside the intake to store the raw
water for the WTP use.
In addition to the Padang Matsirat bunded storage, the raw water source of Padang Saga Fasa 3
WTP is supplemented by Malut dam (with storage capacity of 7.2 MCM) and the Telaga Tujuh
intake during dry season. The Malut reservoir used to store excess water in the wet season and to
augment supply in the dry season when there is little or no flow at the river intakes. Currently,
water from the Malut reservoir is supplied during the dry season to the Padang Saga Fasa 2 and 3
WTPs, and if necessary, to the Bukit Kemboja WTP as well. The schematic diagram of the Figure
2-4.
Figure 2-4: Schematic diagram of water resources system in Sg Melaka Basin
In view of no design report is made available in this Study for the Padang Saga Fasa 3 WTP,
NWRS 2011 study was then reviewed to assess the sufficiency of yield at the Padang Saga Fasa
3 WTP. Based on the NWRS 2011 study, the run-of-river yield at the Padang Saga Fasa 3 intake
is 10.6 MLD. However, it was found that the run-of-river yield could not represent the actual
condition of Padang Saga Fasa 3 WTP as it has a storage scheme – the Padang Matsirat bunded
storage. Hence, additional analysis was carried out in this Study to assess the sufficiency of yield
at the Padang Saga Fasa 3 WTP.
The Padang Saga Fasa 3 intake commands a catchment of 61.7 km². The weighted rainfall of
Rumah JPS Padang Mat Sirat (Station ID 6397111) and Empangan Padang Saga (Station ID
6397112) together with potential evapotranspiration of Rumah JPS Padang Mat Sirat (Station ID
6397311) were input into the TM-WBM rainfall-runoff model to simulate the long-term daily flow
series at the intake. Upstream potable abstractions by Padang Saga Fasa 2 WTP and Bukit
2-42
Kemboja WTP were also taken into consideration in deriving the nett available flow at the Padang
Saga Fasa 3 intake.
Subsequently, a daily flow duration curve (FDC) was derived from the 56 years (1965–2020)
simulated daily flow series. The FDC shows the percentage of time that specific flow in a stream is
being exceeded. Table 2-11 shows the FDC values for various percentage of time.
From the operational records received from SADA, the current raw water abstraction at Padang
Saga Fasa 3 intake is 28.83 MLD, exceeding the design capacity of 18.18 MLD. Based on the
daily flow values simulated by TM-WBM, the river water at the intake is only able to meet the
current abstraction at 83% of time in a year (in average 303 days). With a storage capacity of 0.11
MCM, the Padang Matsirat bunded storage is able to supplement and sustain for another four
days. However, there is still water deficit for an average of about 2 months (57 days) in a year
where water shall be supplemented by Malut Dam and/or Telaga Tujuh intake to Padang Saga
Fasa 3 WTP.
Assuming Malut Dam storage of 7.2 MCM is going to supply to all the three WTPs (Padang Saga
Fasa 2, 3 and Bukit Kemboja) with a total raw water requirement of 46.81 MLD, the storage of
Malut reservoir is able to sustain for 154 days. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Padang
Saga Fasa 3 WTP is sufficient to meet its current abstraction of 28.83 MLD with raw water
from the Padang Mat Sirat intake itself, bunded storage and supplemented by Malut Dam
during the low flow period.
Table 2-11: FDC values for Padang Saga Fasa 3 intake

Padang Saga 3 (1965-2020)
Percentile
(m³/s) (MLD)
10 5.25 454
20 4.04 349
30 3.17 274
40 2.42 209
50 1.81 156
60 1.29 111
70 0.81 70.4
80 0.45 38.8
83 0.36 31.0
85 0.30 25.7
90 0.16 13.9
95 0.03 2.3
96 -0.002 -0.2
97 -0.03 -2.9
2-43
Padang Saga 3 (1965-2020)
Percentile
(m³/s) (MLD)
98 -0.07 -5.6
99 -0.09 -7.6
100 -0.09 -7.6
Remarks: Negative flow indicates insufficient flow after minus the abstraction at the upstream of
the intake
2.4.3.4 Sg Muda Basin – NAWABS Sg Muda (JPS, 2018/2019) and Additional Analysis
The yield for five WTPs under regulated scheme that are located within Sg Muda basin were
assessed by reviewing the NAWABS Sg Muda study. The WTPs include Jeniang Baru, Kulim Hi-
Tech, Sg Petani, Pinang Tunggal and Sg Dua WTP. Out of the five WTPs, Sg Dua WTP is the
only WTP located in Pulau Pinang state while the remaining four are located in Kedah state.
The schematic diagram of Sg Muda basin is presented in Figure 2-5. The relative location of the
main dams, potable abstraction points, streamflow stations as well as the barrage is shown the
figure.
There are two dams in Sg Muda basin, namely Muda Dam and Beris Dam. Started its operation in
year 1969, Muda Dam stores water from its own catchment of 975 km 2 and conveys it to Pedu
reservoir in the Sg Kedah basin via the Saiong Tunnel. Muda Dam water will only flow into Sg
Muda as flood spillage during extremely wet condition or if there is request for the flow to be
released to regulate the Sg Muda during drought event. Beris Dam with a catchment area of 119
km2, started its operation in year 2005 and is mainly used to regulate the intakes located along Sg
Muda during low flow season to maintain sufficient water for potable water supply.
From the review of the NAWABS Sg Muda study, it was found that findings from the NAWABS Sg
Muda study is insufficient to conclude the yield sufficiency at the individual intakes as the results
from the water resources modelling conducted in the NAWABS study was presented for the whole
of the Sg Muda system, and no results of yield at each intake was presented. Hence, additional
analysis was carried out in this study to assess the yield sufficiency at the five study intakes in
view of the availability of the recorded streamflow data in the river basin to reflect the flow after the
operation of the dam.
This assessment is based on the assumption that the operation of the dam release has been
reflected by the recorded data at the streamflow stations located at the downstream of the dams
and could serve as indication on the performance of the intake after the operation the dam. The
stations that have been used are indicated in the Figure 2-5.
Beris Dam started commencement since year 2005. Due to the relatively short period data of only
about 15 years, the yield assessment was not carried out by deriving the 7Q50 but using the daily
2-44
flow duration curve (FDC) method to illustrate the flow availability at different percentage of time
and the average numbers of deficit days for the respective intake.
Figure 2-5: Schematic diagram of Sg Muda Basin
2-45
Jeniang Baru intake
The long-term daily flow data of Jeniang station which is located at about 200 m downstream of
Jeniang Baru intake and reflect the regulated scheme as well as upstream abstractions was used
to assess the yield sufficiency at Jeniang Baru intake.
The FDC was plotted using the reliable recorded streamflow at Jeniang Station from year 2011 to
2020 and as shown in the Table 2-12 below. The FDC shows that at all time, the river flow
arriving at the Jeniang Station is more than 93 MLD and this amount is sufficient to meet
the design capacity (25 MLD) as well as the current abstraction (31.86 MLD) at Jeniang Baru
intake.
Table 2-12: FDC values at Jeniang station

Jeniang (2011 – 2020)
Percentile
(m³/s) (MLD)
10 40.56 3,505
20 26.25 2,268
30 18.97 1,639
40 13.75 1,188
50 11.26 973
60 9.42 814
70 7.34 634
80 5.41 467
85 4.52 391
90 3.64 314
95 2.71 234
96 2.56 221
97 2.47 213
98 2.13 184
99 1.85 160
100 1.08 93
Lower Sg Muda intakes - Kulim Hi-Tech, Sg Petani, Pinang Tunggal and Sg Dua
On the other hand, flow data of Ladang Victoria station which is located nearer to this group of
intakes namely Kulim Hi-Tech, Sg Petani, Pinang Tunggal and Sg Dua were screened for data
consistency. It was found that the water level at Ladang Victoria is affected by the back-water
effect of the barrage located at the downstream and thus is not used for yield assessment.
The long-term daily flow data of another station, Jam. Syed Omar station which is located at 31
km upstream of these group of intakes was used. The station commands a catchment area of
about 2,355 km² was used to represent the flow arriving at the intake of Kulim Hi-Tech, Sg Petani,
Pinang Tunggal and Sg Dua. The flow recorded at the station reflects all the WTPs abstraction at
the upstream of the station. Similar as Jeniang station, only data after the Beris Dam in operation
are used (2005-2018) for the construction of the FDC (refer Table 2-13 for the results).
2-46
Taking into account all the potable abstractions in between Jam. Syed Omar and Sg Dua intake at
Lahar Tiang (i.e. Bikan, Kulim Hi-Tech, Sg Petani, Pinang Tunggal and Sg Dua WTP), the total
raw water requirement is 1,806.5 MLD at Lahar Tiang. The FDC shows that at all time the river
flow arriving at Jam. Syed Omar is more than 969 MLD and this is sufficient to meet the raw
water requirements of Bikan, Kulim Hi-Tech, Sg Petani and Pinang Tunggal intake (a total
of 606.5 MLD), but not for Sg Dua intake at Lahar Tiang which its pumping capacity is 1,200
MLD.
It was recommended in the NAWABS Sg Muda study that performance for Kulim Hi-Tech,
Sg Petani and Pinang Tunggal intakes is affected by the river command level, and the
lowering of intake pumps by approximately 1-2 m at these three intakes has been
recommended by the study.
Table 2-13: FDC values at Jam. Syed Omar station

Jam. Syed Omar (2005 – 2018)
Percentile
(m3/s) (MLD)
10 153.87 13,294
20 107.61 9,298
30 83.50 7,214
40 65.82 5,687
50 52.67 4,551
60 45.09 3,896
70 38.53 3,329
80 32.28 2,789
85 29.47 2,546
90 25.57 2,209
95 21.73 1,878
96 20.32 1,755
97 18.68 1,614
98 15.46 1,335
99 13.85 1,196
100 11.21 969
It was reported in NAWABS Sg Muda study that Sg Dua WTP has a treatment capacity of 1,228
MLD, of which about 900 MLD is supplied from Sg Muda via intake at Lahar Tiang. In view of the
incremental catchment area of about 747 km² located in between Jam. Syed Omar station with the
Lahar Tiang intake, analysis was then carried out to derive the flow contributed by this incremental
catchment to the Lahar Tiang intake.
As the dam release has been reflect by the recorded streamflow at Jam. Syed Omar, the flow
contributed by this incremental catchment has to be of natural flow series. Long-term flow series of
Sg Ketil at Kuala Pegang which is not affected by any dam operation (located within Sg Muda
basin) was selected and transposed to the incremental catchment between Jam. Syed Omar to
2-47
Lahar Tiang intake. FDC at the Lahar Tiang is the summation of the flow arriving at Jam. Syed
Omar and the incremental area. Table 2-14 shows that nett FDC values after minus the water
abstraction between the Jam Syed Omar to Lahar Tiang which is amounted to 606.5 MLD.
Table 2-14: FDC values at Lahar Tiang intake

Lahar Tiang intake
Percentile
(m3/s) (MLD)
10 204.67 17,683
20 140.04 12,100
30 107.02 9,246
40 83.13 7,182
50 65.44 5,654
60 54.46 4,705
70 44.78 3,869
80 35.80 3,093
85 31.40 2,713
90 26.15 2,259
95 20.68 1,786
96 18.87 1,630
97 16.86 1,456
98 12.59 1,087
99 9.69 837
100 4.71 407
The FDC shows that there will be 2% of the time the river flow is less than the pumping
capacity of 1,200 MLD at Lahar Tiang intake. This is equivalent to average of 7 days in a
year. The lowest flow ever recorded at the Lahar Tiang intake is 407 MLD. During this low
flow time, a deficit of about 800 MLD will occur.
In the NAWABS Sg Muda study, it was reported that the Sg Dua WTP is able to utilise
Mengkuang Dam resources via a pipeline with a maximum capacity of 993.6 MLD (11.5 m³/s)
during the dry season. With raw water supplemented by Mengkuang Dam, this could in turn
reduce the water deficit at Sg Dua WTP.
Table 2-15 summarized the derived yield for the five WTPs intake which located within Sg Muda
basin.
Table 2-15: Yield sufficiency the regulated intakes located in Sg Muda basin
Raw Water
Water Treatment Catchment Lowest flow from FDC
No. Requirement
Plant (WTP) Area (km²) (MLD)
(MLD)
93
1 Jeniang Baru 777 31.86
Sufficient
2 Kulim Hi-Tech 3,129 315 969
2-48
Raw Water
Water Treatment Catchment Lowest flow from FDC
No. Requirement
Plant (WTP) Area (km²) (MLD)
(MLD)
3 Sg Petani 3,130 235.4 Sufficient
4 Pinang Tunggal 3,130 47.73
407
Insufficient
Sufficient if water
5 Sg Dua 3,134 1,200 (Lahar Tiang)
supplemented from
Mengkuang Dam during
dry season (993.6 MLD)
2.4.3.5 Sg Tk. Bahang Basin – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional Analysis
There are six dams in Pulau Pinang and two of them, namely Sg Air Itam Dam and Tk. Bahang
Dam are located in te Pulau Pinang Island. Tk. Bahang Dam is located in Sg Tk. Bahang basin,
supplying water to Batu Feringgi WTP and Guillemard WTP. Tk Bahang Dam has a catchment
area of 9.84 km2, with a gross storage of 19 MCM and live storage of 18 MCM.
To assess the yield for Batu Feringgi WTP and Guillemard WTP, the storage sustainability of Tk
Bahang Dam was analysed. The total raw water requirement for these WTPs is 201 MLD. With
the available storage of 18 MCM, Tk Bahang Dam can sustain the supply to both WTPs for 86
days. This indicates there is possibility that the WTP will face water deficits if the dry months last
more than 3 months. The dry period in the northern region has the possibility to span over 3
months; starts from December to January until March of the subsequent year.
2.4.3.6 Sg Dondang Basin – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional Analysis
In Sg Dondang basin in Pulau Pinang Island, there are only two WTPs, namely Air Terjun WTP
and Air Itam WTP. Air Terjun WTP abstracts water from Sg Air Terjun under run-of-river scheme
and Air Itam WTP is supplied by Air Itam Dam under direct supply scheme. Air Itam WTP was
selected for yield assessment in this Study. Air Itam Dam which supplies to Air Itam WTP has a
small catchment area of only 5.75 km 2 and active storage of only 2.6 MCM. Based on the NWRS
2011, simulation results show that with just a small storage of 2.6 MCM, the strorage will be
dropped to the MOL during the first two months of the 1 in 50-year drought. Based on the simple
water balance to assess the storage sustainability, the dam storage can only sustain for 45 days
to meet the raw water requirement of 57.75 MLD by the Air Itam WTP. This indicates there is
possibility that the WTP will face water deficits if the dry months last more than 3 months. The dry
period in the northern region has the possibility to span over 3 months; starts from December until
January to March of the subsequent year.
2-49
2.4.3.7 Sg Perak Basin – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional Analysis
Within Sg Perak Basin, there are a total of 29 WTPs (refer Figure 2-6) and nine of them are
assessed in this Study. All WTPs except for Sg Kinta and Ulu Kinta (MUC Ulu Kinta) are under
run-of-river scheme and were assessed by adopting HP 12 or low flow frequency analysis. These
WTPs have sufficient yield.
Sg Kinta WTP and Ulu Kinta (MUC Ulu Kinta) WTP with raw water requirement of 238.67 MLD
and 143.2 MLD respectively are direct supply scheme served by the Sultan Azlan Shah Dam. The
dam has catchment area of 146 km 2 and active storage of 28.6 MCM. NWRS 2011 stated that the
1 in 50-year net direct supply yield of the dam after considering environmental flow of 61.34 MLD
and plant loss of 10.5 MLD is 208 MLD, which is less than the total design capacity of Sg Kinta
and Ulu Kinta (MUC Ulu Kinta) WTP.
The dam was completed in 2007 but its design report is not made available for review in this Study.
The yield for both WTPs is assessed by analysing the storage sustainability of the dam. To supply
to Sg Kinta WTP and Ulu Kinta (MUC Ulu Kinta) WTP with a total raw water requirement of 381.87
MLD, the dam storage is able to sustain for 75 days. This indicates there is possibility that the
WTPs will face water deficits if the dry months last more than 3 months.
2-50
Figure 2-6: Schematic Diagram for Sg Perak Basin
2-51
2.4.3.8 Sg Kurau Basin and Sg Kerian Basin – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional
Analysis
Gunung Semanggol WTP and Jalan Baru WTP are regulated by Bukit Merah Dam via irrigation
channels namely Terusan Besar Bagan Serai / Sg Samagagah and Terusan Selinsing. Bukit
Merah was constructed in 1906 and raised in 1961 and 1984. It drains an area of 480 km2 and has
storage capacity of 93 MCM. Its main function is to provide water for irrigation areas under the
Kerian – Sg Manik project. Under drought or low flow condition, potable water supply for Gunung
Semanggol WTP and Jalan Baru WTP (with raw water requirement of 136.5 MLD and 52.5 MLD
respectively) is prioritized. The dam’s storage can sustain the supply to the WTPs for 492 days.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the yield for Gunung Semanggol WTP and Jalan Baru WTP is
sufficient.
2.4.3.9 Sg Bernam Basin – NAWABS Sg Bernam (JPS, 2020)
Sg Bernam basin with an area of approximately 2,686 km 2, is located within the states of Perak
and Selangor, with the river, Sg Bernam, demarcating the boundary between the two states. A
land area of approximately 1,903 km 2 which accounts for 71% of the total basin area is located in
the Perak State, while 783 km2 which is around 29% of the basin is located in the Selangor state.
The schematic diagram of the water users in Sg Bernam basin comprising usage from potable and
irrigation sectors is shown in Figure 2-7.
Legend:
Intake
Streamflow station
Source: NAWABS Sg Bernam (JPS, 2020)

Figure 2-7: Schematic diagram of water resources system in Sg Bernam Basin
2-52
There are nine operating WTPs with their respective run-off-river intakes in the basin as listed in
Table 2-16. Of these, Sg Geliting, Bernam River Headworks (BRH), Kalumpang and Sg Sireh
were selected for yield assessment in this Study. The potable water source in the basin presently
relies on direct abstraction from Sg Bernam and its tributaries with no water supply dam
constructed within the basin. The potable water supply is currently managed by Lembaga Air
Perak (LAP) and Pengurusan Air Selangor (Air Selangor) for the districts within Perak and
Selangor respectively. The current river abstraction rate has been updated using latest data
provided by LAP, Air Selangor, LUAS and SPAN during NAWABS Sg Bernam study.
The fourth largest granary area in Malaysia operated by Integrated Agriculture Development Area
(IADA) namely Barat Laut Selangor Scheme is located in the basin. The scheme mainly relies on
the water from Sg Bernam, which is diverted at BRH. The diverted water is supplemented by the
runoff contribution from Sg Tengi, Sg Dusun and North Selangor Peat Swamp Forest (NSPSF)
catchments, being channelled along the Feeder Canal, Sg Tengi and subsequently to the Main
Canal. Water is then distributed to the paddy fields via a network of tertiary canals connected to
the Main Canal at the constant head orifices (CHOs).
Table 2-16: Potable water river abstraction works in the study area of NAWABS Sg Bernam
Design Current average

State River Abstraction Works Capacity abstraction Reference
(MLD) (MLD)
Sg Behrang Sg Dara WTP 22.7 12.1
Sg Geliting /
Perak *Sg Geliting WTP 74.5 38.2 LAP/SPAN
Sg Slim
Sg Trolak Trolak WTP 8.5 6.9
Total (Perak) 105.7 57.2
*Bernam River
Sg Bernam 65.5 69.9
Headworks WTP
Sg Inki *Kalumpang WTP 6.7 7.1
Selangor Sg Selisek Sg Selisek WTP 1.3 2.86 LUAS/AiS
Sg Dusun Sg Dusun WTP 1.3 1.5
Sg Tengi Sg Tengi WTP 1.3 2.89
Sg Sireh *Sg Sireh WTP 27.0 19.4
Total (Selangor) 103.1 103.65
Grand Total 208.8 160.85
Remarks:
 There are two intakes built for Sg Geliting WTP, namely Sg Geliting Intake and Sg Slim
Intake. However, only Sg Geliting intake is currently in use due to the low demand from the
WTP.
 The current abstraction shown in the table is based on the maximum 1-month abstraction
records.
 * indicate the WTP intakes selected for yield assessment in this Study
NAWABS Sg Bernam simulated the long-term historical flow within the basin from 1981 to 2016
using MIKE HYDRO Basin model. The simulated flows were subsequently used for analysis to
2-53
determine the reliability of the water supply and irrigation intakes under specific design low flow
ARI.
The flow arriving at a particular intake considered the water abstraction by all the water users
located at the upstream of the respective intake. The 7Q5 and 7Q50 arriving at the intake are then
compared against the water demand at that particular intake (refer Table 2-17) for the supply-
demand surplus deficit assessment.
Based on the assessment in NAWABS Sg Bernam study, the design low flow yield at Sg Geliting
intake of 21.9 MLD is insufficient to cater for the current abstraction of 38.2 MLD. However, the
arriving 7Q50 at both Kalumpang and BRH intakes are still adequate to meet the demand by the
respective WTPs.
Sg Sireh WTP is located along the Main Canal of the Barat Laut Selangor irrigation system. As Sg
Sireh WTP is taking water directly from the Main Canal and located at the very upstream of the
Main Canal with large inflow, sustainable supply of water at the intake is guaranteed.
The analysis that has been conducted in the NAWABS Sg Bernam was based on comprehensive
water resources modelling with recent data and hence the findings could be adopted in this Study.
Table 2-17: Surplus-deficit of the water intake (POI) catchments under 7Q50 of historical
flow series (1981 to 2016) comparing with the water demand at 2015
Mean
Annual 7Q50
Catchment Current Max *Surplus Deficit
Water Flow Arriving
No. Area Abstraction Status
Intake Arriving at POI
(km2) (MLD) Under 7Q50
at POI (MLD)
(MLD)
1 Sg Geliting 30 126 21.9 38.2 Deficit
2 Kalumpang 26 108 19.7 7.1 Surplus
Bernam
River
3 1,229 4,730 716.2 69.9 Surplus
Headworks
(BRH)
1,229 (at
4 Sg Sireh the BRH 4,730 716.2 19.4 Surplus
diversion)
2.4.3.10 Sg Selangor Basin – IRBM Sg Selangor (LUAS, 2014) and Additional Analysis
Sg Selangor basin with a catchment area of approximately 2,200 km 2 plays a very important role
in water supply, accounting for about 60% of the total potable water for Selangor, Wilayah
Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya. There is no irrigation scheme within Sg Selangor basin.
2-54
The schematic diagram of the water users in Sg Selangor basin is shown in Figure 2-8. List of
WTPs located in Sg Selangor basin is summarized in Table 2-18, with total design capacity of
3,018.2 MLD. Eight WTPs namely, Rasa, SSP1, SSP2, SSP3, Rantau Panjang, Batang Kali,
Kuala Kubu Bharu, and Sg Rangkap were assessed in this Study. Batang Kali, Kuala Kubu Bharu,
and Sg Rangkap which are run-off-river intakes have been assessed using the low flow frequency
analysis and presented in previous section.
Figure 2-8: Schematic diagram of water users in Sg Selangor Basin
Table 2-18: Details of water treatment plants in Sg Selangor Basin

WTP in Sg Selangor Basin Design Capacity (MLD)
*SSP1 950
*SSP2 950
2-55
WTP in Sg Selangor Basin Design Capacity (MLD)
*SSP3 800
*Rasa 250
*Rantau Panjang 32
*Batang Kali 20
*Sg Rangkap 9
*Kuala Kubu Bharu 7
Sg Buaya 0.2
Total 3,018.2
Remarks: * WTPs selected for yield assessment in this Study
The yield in the basin at Bestari Jaya is enhanced by the introduction of the Sg Tinggi and Sg
Selangor dams. The Sg Selangor dam has a catchment area of 197 km 2 and is located in the
upper catchment of Sg Selangor basin near Kuala Kubu Bharu. The dam was completed in mid of
year 2003. Under Sg Selangor Phase 3 Scheme, Sg Selangor Dam was constructed to provide
additional 1,100 MLD (12.7 m 3/s) and enabling the abstraction capacity from Sg Selangor to be
increased from 1,900 MLD (22 m 3/s) to 3,000 MLD (34.7 m 3/s). Sg Tinggi dam has a catchment
area of 40 km2 and is located in the upper reaches of Sg Buloh. There is a pumping station of 150
MLD capacity to refill the Sg Tinggi reservoir from the main reach of Sg Selangor during the high
flow season.
From the review of the final report of IRBM Sg Selangor by LUAS in year 2014, it was found that
findings from the IRBM Sg Selangor study is insufficient to conclude the yield sufficiency at the
Study intakes, and thus, additional analysis was carried out in this study to assess the sufficiency
yield at the five Study intakes in view of the availability of the recorded streamflow data in the river
basin to reflect the flow after the operation of the dam.
This assessment is based on the assumption that the operation of the dam release has been
reflected by the recorded data at the streamflow stations located at the downstream of the dams
and could serve as indication on the performance of the intake after the operation the dam. The
stations that has been used are indicated in the Figure 2-8.
Sg Selangor Dam started commencement since year 2004. Due to the relatively short period data
of only about 16 years, the yield assessment was not carried out by deriving the 7Q50 but using
the daily FDC method to illustrate the flow availability at the respective intake at different
percentage of time and the average numbers of deficit days.
Rasa Intake
Streamflow data of Empang Pecah (6.5 km upstream of Rasa intake) and Rasa stations (200 m
upstream of Rasa intake) were utilized in the analysis for Rasa intake. In view of Rasa station data
is only available up to year 2002, which is before the Sg Selangor Dam in operation, recorded flow
2-56
at Empang Pecah station (2009–2020) which reflects the regulated schemes was used to
represent flow availability at Empang Pecah while the recorded flow at Rasa station (1962-2002)
which reflects the natural flow characteristics of the river was transposed to represent the flow
availability for the incremental catchment from Empang Pecah to Rasa intake.
Table 2-19 shows the FDC at the Rasa intake. The FDC indicates that there is only about 1%
of the time or on average 4 days in a year, the river flow arriving at the Rasa intake is less
than 270 MLD and is not able to meet the raw water requirement of Rasa WTP of 270 MLD.
Table 2-19: FDC Values at Rasa intake

Rasa intake
Percentile
(m³/s) (MLD)
10 24.1 2,080
20 18.6 1,604
30 15.3 1,318
40 12.9 1,111
50 11.4 987
60 10.2 878
70 9.07 784
80 8.19 708
85 7.08 612
90 5.45 471
95 3.81 329
96 3.62 313
97 3.43 296
98 3.21 277
99 3.02 261
100 2.69 232
Rantau Panjang Intake

On the other hand, the recorded flow at Rantau Panjang station (4.3 km of SSP3 intake) after Sg
Selangor and Sg Tinggi Dam in full operation (2005–2020) was adopted in assessing the yield
sufficiency at Rantau Panjang intake.
It has to be noted that Rantau Panjang station is located at about 400 m downstream of Rantau
Panjang intake, and thus, the upstream abstractions including the abstraction by Rantau Panjang
intake itself were reflected in the recorded flow data of Rantau Panjang station.
Table 2-20 presents the FDC values at Rantau Panjang station. The FDC shows that at all time
the river flow arriving at the Rantau Panjang station after considering the Rantau Panjang
intake abstraction is more than 532 MLD. This amount is sufficient to meet the raw water
requirement of Rantau Panjang intake (33.1 MLD).
2-57
Table 2-20: FDC Values at Rantau Panjang station
Rantau Panjang (2005-2020)
Percentile
(m³/s) (MLD)
10 110.02 9506
20 78.08 6746
30 62.44 5395
40 50.37 4352
50 42.26 3651
60 36.80 3180
70 32.65 2821
80 29.23 2525
85 27.90 2411
90 26.63 2301
95 24.68 2132
96 24.06 2079
97 23.06 1992
98 21.94 1896
99 20.30 1754
100 6.16 532
SSP1, 2, and 3
Yield assessment for the group of SSP intake in close vicinity was conducted by estimating the
flow arriving at the first SSP intake which is SSP3. The flow arriving at the SSP3 intake is the
summation of the flow arriving at Rantau Panjang station and the flow contributed by the
incremental catchment area between the Rantau Panjang station with SSP3 intake of 251 km².
Rantau Panjang recorded flow of 2005 to 2020 was used to reflect the regulated effect of Sg
Selangor and Sg Tinggi Dam up to Rantau Panjang station, and recorded flow of Rantau Panjang
from 1960 to 2004 which reflects the natural flow characteristics of the river was used to transpose
to the incremental catchment.
Daily FDC was subsequently developed using the total flow arriving at the SSP3 intake to illustrate
the availability of the flow and the percentage of the time where the water deficit will occur when
comparing to the total raw water requirement for the three SSP intakes of 3,035.2 MLD. Table
2-21 shows the FDC values for various percentage of time at SSP3 intake.
It was indicated by the FDC that there is an average of 15 days (4%) in a year where the flow
at SSP group of intakes is lesser than 3,035.2 MLD and requires water supplemented from
HORAS scheme. The HORAS scheme when fully implemented as reported in the IRBM Sg
Selangor study will provide a nett yield of 1,367 MLD shall be able to meet the water
demand at the three SSP intakes with 99 percent reliability (the summation of 99 percentile
flow at the river of about 2,000 MLD and the nett yield from HORAS of about 1,367 MLD
shall provide total flow of 3,367 MLD).
2-58
Table 2-21: FDC values for SSP3 intake

SSP3 intake
Percentile
(m³/s) (MLD)
10 222.7 19,238
20 160.4 13,862
30 127.9 11,051
40 104.2 9,000
50 87.14 7,529
60 73.86 6,382
70 63.08 5,450
80 53.35 4,609
85 49.27 4,257
90 45.00 3,888
95 39.05 3,374
96 36.47 3,151
97 33.81 2,921
98 30.27 2,615
99 25.11 2,170
100 6.85 592
2.4.3.11 Sg Klang Basin – IRBM Sg Klang (LUAS, 2016) and Development of Batu Dam
Operating Rule Curve (Air Selangor, 2019)
The yield for three WTPs located within Sg Klang basin were assessed by reviewing the Sg Klang
IRBM Study. The WTPs include Sg Batu, Wangsa Maju and Bukit Nanas WTP. Out of the three
WTPs, Sg Batu WTP receives water direct supplied from Batu Dam while Bukit Nanas WTP
receives water direct supplied from Klang Gates Dam. There are two water sources for Wangsa
Maju WTP, one direct supply from Klang Gates Dam, and one from Sg Gombak, sharing the same
intake with Gombak WTP.
Sg Batu WTP
In this Study, the final report of Development of Batu Dam Operating Rule Curve by Air Selangor
in year 2019 (termed as Batu Dam ORC 2019) was reviewed in order to assess the yield
sufficiency at Sg Batu WTP. Batu Dam is a multi-purpose flood control and water supply dam
which was constructed in 1987 under the Kuala Lumpur Flood Mitigation Project. The dam is a
direct supply dam providing raw water to the Sg Batu WTP which has a nominal design capacity of
113.7 MLD.
In the Batu Dam ORC 2019 study, MIKE 11 NAM Model which is part of the MIKE 11 module
developed by Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI), Denmark was used to determine the allowable
yield and critical drawdown duration of Batu Dam under the 50-year 48-month drought sequence.
The allowable abstraction is the rate at which the reservoir storage is able to recharge to its full
storage within the designated carry over period (full-minimum-full period). The critical drawdown
2-59
duration refers to the time period where the reservoir water level drops to its minimum storage or
level under the inflow of the 50-year 48-month drought sequence and specified abstraction
scenario. The water balance routing was carried out for various water abstraction scenarios and
the results are as shown in Figure 2-9.
Source: Batu Dam ORC 2019 (Air Selangor, 2019)

Figure 2-9: Reservoir simulation drawdown curves for various water abstraction rates
The drawdown curves in Figure 2-9 shows that for the abstraction rate of 110 MLD and 114 MLD,
the critical drawdown period is 15th month and the reservoir is able to recharge to the full active
storage. The critical draw down duration refers to the time period where the reservoir water level
drops to its minimum storage or level under the inflow of the 50-year 48-month drought sequence
and specified abstraction scenario. Under the 120 MLD abstraction, the critical drawdown period is
15th month but the reservoir will only be able to recharge to 76% of the full active storage. For the
abstraction of 125 MLD and 130 MLD, the critical drawdown period is 32 month and 44 months
respectively. The reservoir is only able to recharge to about 53% and 30% of the full active
storage under the two abstraction scenarios. Abstraction rate of 140 MLD is not
recommended as the reservoir will reach the inactive storage level under the design
drought scenario.
In short, the 1 in 50-year ARI nett direct supply yield of the reservoir is 114 MLD as the
reservoir is able to recharge to the full active storage at the end of the 48-month drought
sequence; however, the reservoir could supply up to 130 MLD of raw water to the Sg Batu
WTP with the condition that the reservoir will only able to recharge to about 30% of the full
active storage. The results show that the nett direct supply yield of 114 MLD is sufficient to
meet the design capacity of Sg Batu WTP (113.7 MLD).
2-60
From the data received from Air Selangor, it was shown that the current production of Sg Batu
WTP is 130.95 MLD, 15% more than the designed capacity. Considering the 5% WTP losses, the
raw water requirement under this production (130.95 MLD) is 137.5 MLD. According to the Batu
Dam ORC 2019 study, the abstraction of 137.5 MLD which is nearly 140 MLD is not advisable as
the drawdown will reach the bottom of the active storage of the Batu reservoir.
Wangsa Maju and Bukit Nanas WTP

For Wangsa Maju and Bukit Nanas WTP, the final report of IRBM Sg Klang by LUAS in year 2016
was reviewed in order to assess the yield sufficiency for both WTPs. Klang Gate Dam is a multi-
purpose flood control and water supply dam which started operation in 1959 and was
subsequently raised in 1981. The dam is a direct supply dam providing raw water to Bukit Nanas
with raw water requirement of 152.25 MLD and Wangsa Maju with design capacity of 47.25 MLD.
Total supply from the Klang Gate Dam to fulfil the design capacity of the two WTPs amounted to
about 200 MLD.
The ORC for abstraction of 200 MLD, 175 MLD, 160 MLD, 140 MLD and 125 MLD was presented
in the IRBM Sg Klang 2016 study as shown in Figure 2-10. The lowest rule curve of 125 MLD
indicate as the reliable yield that the Klang Gate Dam could provide without reaching the minimum
operating level of the dam.
As shown in the rule curve, during the drought year of 1997, when the reservoir water level (WL)
kept dropping after the month of June until year end (black dashed line), the rule curve for reduced
abstraction between 140 MLD and 125 MLD was applied. This indicates that during the drought,
the reservoir was unable to supply to the full required amount of 200 MLD to both WTPs.
2-61
Source: IRBM Sg Klang (LUAS, 2016)
Figure 2-10: Operating rule curve for Klang Gates Dam
Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-12 show the water release records from Klang Gate Dam to Bukit
Nanas and Wangsa Maju WTPs respectively between 2005-2015. Data shows the water release
to Bukit Nanas WTP is normally between 115 MLD to 145 MLD, except during the drought year of
2007 where the water release recorded are 80 MLD on May and 50 MLD in October. During
another drought year of 2014, water release to Bukit Nanas WTP was dropped to 90 MLD in
February, that was the period where Selangor had undergone water crisis.
From the reliable yield of 125 MLD shown in the rule curve and the historical reduced
release of below 100 MLD to the Bukit Nanas WTP during the drought year, it is concluded
that the yield from the Klang Gate dam is insufficient to cater for the full design capacity of
152.25 MLD of Bukit Nanas WTP during the drought.
2-62

Figure 2-11: Water release from Klang Gate Dam to Bukit Nanas WTP between year 2005-
2015

Figure 2-12: Water release from Klang Gate Dam to Wangsa Maju WTP between year 2005-
2015
2-63
From the historical release of Klang Gate Dam to Wangsa Maju WTP with great fluctuation, it
could be observed that during critical period, priority release will be given to Bukit Nanas WTP.
There were times that no release was provided to Wangsa Maju WTP and the supply has to totally
depend on the alternate water source at Sg Gombak.
According to the low flow frequency analysis result of Gombak WTP intake, the nett yield at
the intake is only 10.1 MLD after considering the upstream potable abstraction by Sg
Rumput WTP. This nett yield of 10.1 MLD at Gombak intake is insufficient to meet either the
raw water requirement of Gombak WTP (32.17 MLD) or Wangsa Maju WTP (47.25 MLD)
during the drought.
2.4.3.12 Sg Buloh Basin – IRBM Sg Klang (LUAS, 2016)
The final report of IRBM Sg Klang by LUAS in year 2016 was reviewed to assess the yield
sufficiency for North Hammock WTP (23.63 MLD). Tasik Subang Dam is a water supply dam
which started operation in 1950. The dam is a direct supply dam providing raw water to North
Hammock WTP.
The ORC for abstraction of 16 MLD, 11 MLD and 7 MLD was presented in the IRBM Sg Klang
2016 study as shown in Figure 2-13. The lowest rule curve of 7 MLD indicates the reliable yield
that the Tasik Subang Dam could provide without reaching the minimum operating level of the
dam.
As shown in the rule curve, during the drought year of 1997, when the reservoir WL (black
dashed line) dropped below the 3rd rule curve, the abstraction has to reduce to even below
7 MLD. This indicates that during the drought, the reservoir was unable to supply to the full
design capacity of 23.63 MLD for the North Hammock WTP.
2-64

Figure 2-13: Operating rule curve for Tasik Subang Dam
Figure 2-14 shows the water release from Tasik Subang Dam to North Hammock WTP between
2005–2015. Data shows the water release to North Hammock WTP is normally between 10
MLD to 20 MLD. The release from Tasik Subang Dam (between 10 MLD to 20 MLD) is also
insufficient for the design capacity (23.63 MLD) of North Hammock WTP.
2-65
Figure 2-14: Water release from Tasik Subang Dam to North Hammock WTP between year
2005–2015
2.4.3.13 Sg Langat Basin – IRBM Sg Langat study (LUAS, 2015), Semenyih Dam Storage
Prediction Model (Konsortium ABASS Sdn Bhd 2015), NWRS (2011) and Additional
Analysis
There are 11 WTP intakes in Sg Langat basin. Of these, eight WTPs namely Sg Labu, Salak
Tinggi, Sg Semenyih, Sg Langat, Cheras 11 Miles, Bkt Tampoi, Semenyih 2 and Labohan Dagang
were selected for yield assessment in this Study. The schematic diagram of Sg Langat basin is
shown in Figure 2-15. There are two dams located in Sg Langat Basin; Langat Dam and
Semenyih Dam. Langat Dam (completed in year 1979) is located at upper Sg Langat with a
catchment area of about 42 km². Semenyih Dam is located at upper Sg Semenyih, a tributary of
Sg Langat, and commands a catchment area of about 57 km². Semenyih Dam was completed in
year 1986. Both dams have been constructed primarily for water supply purposes. They serve as
regulating reservoir scheme where controlled releases are made from an impounding reservoir to
supplement the river flows during periods where the river flows are deficient.
2-66
Figure 2-15: Schematic diagram of Sg Langat Basin
IRBM Sg Langat study conducted by LUAS in year 2015 was reviewed. Table 2-22 below
summarized the findings extracted from the IRBM Sg Langat study. There is no detailed
description on how the yield is derived for the WTPs. In view of this, additional analysis was
carried out to substantiate the yield derived from the IRBM Sg Langat study. Additional analysis
was carried out for seven WTPs in Sg Langat basin and discussed subsequently. For Salak Tinggi
WTP, yield analysis was carried out using the low flow frequency analysis (TM-WBM) and is
discussed in Section 2.4.2.
Table 2-22: Summary of findings extracted from IRBM Sg Langat study (LUAS, 2015)
No. Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Design Capacity (MLD) Yield (MLD)
1 Sg Labu*** 105 105
2 Sg Semenyih* 546 559**
3 Sg Langat* 386 380
2-67
No. Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Design Capacity (MLD) Yield (MLD)
4 Cheras Mile 11 27 5.6
5 Bukit Tampoi 31.5 77.9
Note: * Source: Review of NWRS 2000-2050
** Already allowed for cluster of mining ponds
*** Alternate Water Supply Scheme for KLIA, Sepang, Selangor
Sg Labu WTP
Sg Labu WTP is an ORS scheme abstracting water from Sg Labu, a tributary of Sg Langat; and
hence, not regulated by Langat Dam and Semenyih Dam (refer Figure 2-15). The long-term daily
rainfall of Ladang Bute (Station ID 2717114) together with potential evapotranspiration of JPS
Sikamat (Station ID 2719301) were input into the TM-WBM rainfall-runoff model to simulate the
long-term daily flow series for the Sg Labu intake.
A daily FDC was derived from the 72 years (1948–2019) simulated daily flow series. The FDC
shows the percentage of time that specific flow in a stream is being exceeded. Table 2-23 shows
the FDC values for various percentage of time.
Table 2-23: FDC values for Sg Labu intake

Sg Labu intake (1948–2019)
Percentile
(m³/s) (MLD)
10 11.09 958
20 8.78 759
30 7.24 625
40 6.03 521
50 4.96 429
60 3.98 344
70 3.10 268
80 2.23 193
85 1.81 156
90 1.38 119
91 1.30 112
95 0.95 81.9
96 0.85 73.6
97 0.74 64.3
98 0.61 52.5
99 0.49 42.0
100 0.49 42.0
The Sg Labu WTP has a design capacity of 105 MLD. Considering 5% WTP losses, the raw water
requirement at the Sg Labu intake is 110.25 MLD. Based on the daily flow values simulated by
TM-WBM, the river water at the intake is able to meet the raw water requirement at 91% of
time in a year (in average 332 days). There is a deficit of 33 days on average in a year. The
Sg Labu ORS with a storage capacity of 9.3 MCM, is able to supplement the required 110.25
MLD during these deficit days and sustain for 84 days. Hence, it can be concluded that the
2-68
Sg Labu WTP is sufficient to meet its raw water requirement of 110.25 MLD with the current
ORS system.
Sg Semenyih WTP
The yield for Sg Semeyih WTP was assessed using the study namely, ‘Semenyih Dam Storage
Prediction Model’ by Konsortium ABASS Sdn Bhd in year 2015.
Semenyih Dam is located at the upper reach of Sg Semenyih, a tributary of Sg Langat and has a
catchment area of about 57 km2. Semenyih Dam regulates the river flow for raw water abstraction
at the Jenderam Hilir intake (supply water to Semenyih WTP) located at about 36 km downstream.
The catchment area at the intake is about 616 km 2. Water from the intake is directed to Semenyih
WTP which supplied water to the southwestern region of Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Jaya, Shah Alam,
Klang and Putrajaya.
In addition to the release from Semenyih Dam, the intake has been augmented by the pumping
from a series of defunct mining ponds located at the downstream of Sg Langat – Sg Semenyih
confluence (termed as WT1 pumping). The WT 1 pumping has been in operation after the 1997–
1998 drought, utilizing water from Sg Langat catchment.
A study to develop Semenyih Dam Storage Prediction Model (Semenyih SPM) was carried out by
Konsortium ABASS Sdn Bhd (ABASS) in year 2015. Semenyih SPM is able to provide predication
on the dam storage changes under various rainfall and release/abstraction scenarios, It allows
storage prediction up to 12 months ahead under several flow condition such as normal flow,
design low flow and no rain condition.
The operations at Semenyih Dam and Jenderam Hilir Intake are described in the “Standard
Operating Procedure - Pelepasan Air Empangan Semenyih”. The operation at the dam and the
intake are presented in the diagram shown in Figure 2-16 and explained below:
a) Operation at Jenderam Hilir Intake

A 4-gated weir was constructed across the Semenyih river at the intake. The level at the
top of the weir is 12.00 m, where excess water beyond this level will overflow to the
downstream (termed as residual flow). Prior to initialization of dam release, when the
water level at the intake drops to 11.98 m, the first pumping of 34 MLD at WT1 (water from
Sg Langat) shall be initiated. This is followed by second pumping of 68 MLD should the
water level at the intake kept declining despite the initial pumping.
b) Operation at Semenyih Dam

If the water level did not rise at the intake after the maximum pumping of 102 MLD at WT1,
91 MLD of water shall be released from the dam. Another 45 MLD of water shall be
2-69
released from the dam if the water level at the intake shows no significant increase after
12 to 14 hours afterwards.
Source: Semenyih Dam Storage Prediction Model (Konsortium ABASS Sdn Bhd 2015)
Figure 2-16: Semenyih Dam and Semenyih intake operation
A water balance model to reflect the dam, intake and the pumping form WT1 operation was
developed in the Semenyih Dam SPM. Long term simulation was carried out to assess the
production and water resource status of the scheme using derived inflows from 1994 to 2014 and
a constant demand of 682 MLD. The predicted storage is shown in Figure 2-17. The plotting
shows that the system is able to sustain the constant abstraction of 682 MLD. Significant
decreases of storage were observed during historical droughts e.g. 1998, 2005 but the dam was
recharge back to its full supply storage afterwards.
2-70
Figure 2-17: Semenyih storage prediction (1994 – 2014)
The finding in Semenyih SPM Study is slightly lower than the recommendation published in
“Extended Study on Semenyih Yield” by SHMB in September 2002. This 2002 study concluded
that the reliable yields at the Semenyih intake to be in the range of 735 to 785 MLD, excluding the
safety margin provided by the mining pond scheme.
The status of production and water resource for Sg Langat was published in the latest “Integrated
River Basin Management (IRBM) Study (2015 – 2020)” by Lembaga Urus Air Selangor (LUAS). It
was reported in the Study that the regulated intake for Semenyih WTP at Jenderam Hilir is not
sustainable to cater for the demand of 700 MLD, even with the contribution from the mining ponds
scheme.
With the more recent data used in the Semenyih SPM Study than the “Extended Study on
Semenyih Yield” by SHMB in September 2002, and comparable results with the IRBM Study
by LUAS, the yield for the Semenyih WTP at the Jenderam Hilir is anticipated to be more
than 680 MLD but lower than 700 MLD.
Sg Langat WTP and Cheras Mile 11 WTP

Sg Langat and Cheras Mile 11 WTPs are regulated by Langat Dam. The raw water requirement at
Sg Langat WTP is 405.3 MLD after take into consideration the 5% WTP losses. It was reported in
IRBM Sg Langat study that the yield of 380 MLD at Sg Langat WTP was derived from reviewing
the NWRS 2011 study. In the NWRS 2011 study, detailed HEC-ResSim model has been
simulated to reassess the reservoir or system yield of existing water supply systems in Sg Langat
2-71
basin. A compensation release of 87 MLD was considered to pass the intake in the derivation of
the 1 in 50-year ARI nett regulated yield at the Sg Langat intake (380 MLD).
It was found that the nett regulated yield (380 MLD) of Sg Langat intake after the consideration of
compensation release, is insufficient to meet the raw water requirement at Sg Langat WTP (405.3
MLD). In the scenario where no compensation release from the Sg Langat intake, a gross yield of
467 MLD is sufficient to meet the raw water requirement of the WTP.
Cheras Mile 11 intake is located downstream of the Sg Langat intake. In this Study, the recorded
flow of Kajang station which is located about 7 km downstream of Cheras Mile 11 (catchment area
for the Kajang station is 380 km²), and reflects the regulated effects of Langat Dam, was
transposed upstream to the Cheras Mile 11 intake. It has to be noted that the all the abstractions
upstream of the Kajang station has been reflected in the recorded flow series, including the
abstraction by Cheras Mile 11 intake.
For yield assessment at the Cheras 11 Mile, low flow frequency analysis utilising records at Sg
Langat at Kajang is considered acceptable despite the station flow series has been regulated by
the Langat Dam release. The assumption in this context is that the Langat dam release and all the
abstractions taken place at the upstream of the Kajang station has been implemented long time
and has followed consistent release and abstraction pattern. The considerable long records of 40
years at the station which include the 97/98 and 2014 drought years is also sufficient to represent
regulated flow regime in the catchment. In view of this, the low flow frequency analysis utilising
this Kajang station data after the Langat Dam is used as an indication to assess the performance
of the intake after the implementation of the Langat Dam release.
Low flow frequency analysis was then carried out using the 40 years of data from 1980 to 2020
data (after Langat Dam in operation) to check the sufficiency of yield at the Cheras Mile 11 intake
(refer Table 2-24 for the results). The 7Q50 at the Cheras Mile 11 intake is 50.1 MLD. This
indicates that the yield at Cheras Mile 11 intake is sufficient to meet the raw water
requirement of Cheras Mile 11 WTP (28.35 MLD) even after accounting for the abstraction
by Cheras Mile 11 intake.
Table 2-24: Derived 7-day low flow of various ARIs at Cheras Mile 11 intake
Cheras Mile 11 intake (1980-2020)
ARI (year)
(m3/s) (MLD)
2 2.36 204
5 1.31 113
10 0.97 83.9
20 0.76 65.7
50 0.58 50.1
100 0.49 41.9
2-72
Semenyih 2, Bukit Tampoi and Labohan Dagang

Semenyih 2, Bukit Tampoi and Labohan Dagang WTPs are located at lower part of Sg Langat
basin. Among the WTPs, Semenyih 2 and Labohan Dagang WTPs are recently completed and
started operation in year 2018; thus, there is no information of these WTPs in the IRBM Sg Langat
study. Recorded flow of Dengkil station which is located near to these three intakes was then
selected for analysis.
The Semenyih 2, Bukit Tampoi and Labohan Dagang will be regulated by the residual flow from
the upstream intakes if there is any. Based on the SOP of Semenyih Dam, the release from
Semenyih dam is only meant to regulate the Semenyih WTP intake. All these are able to be
reflected by the recorded flow at Dengkil station which is located at about 1.3 km upstream of
Bukit Tampoi intake.
The effect of the Langat Dam release on the recorded flow at Dengkil station is not significant as
shown in the cumulative curve plotting at Dengkil station as shown in Figure 2-18. Based on this
flow homogeneity, the effect of Langat dam could be ignored and the entire data period from
1962–2019 at Dengkil station could be used in the analysis for the yield assessment at Semenyih
2, Bukit Tampoi and Labohan Dagang WTPs.
Figure 2-18: Cumulative plotting of streamflow at Sg Langat at Dengkil station
2-73
The recorded flow at Dengkil station which is located at about 1.3 km upstream of Bukit Tampoi
intake is representative of the flow availability at Bukit Tampoi intake as all upstream abstractions
have been captured and reflected in the station data. Low flow frequency analysis was then
carried out to check the sufficiency of yield at the Bukit Tampoi intake (refer Table 2-25 for the
results). The 7Q50 at the Dengkil station is 254 MLD. This indicates that the yield at Bukit
Tampoi intake is sufficient to meet the raw water requirement of Bukit Tampoi WTP (33.08
MLD).
Table 2-25: Derived 7-day low flow of various ARIs at Dengkil station
Dengkil (1962-2019)
ARI (year)
(m3/s) (MLD)
2 8.00 691
5 5.13 443
10 4.06 351
20 3.43 296
50 2.94 254
100 2.72 235
Dengkil station which is located at about 6.5 km downstream of Semenyih 2 intake and 13 km
upstream of Labohan Dagang intake was transposed to the Semenyih 2 and Labohan Dagang
intakes. It has to be noted that the all the abstractions upstream of the Dengkil station has been
reflected in the recorded flow series, including the abstraction by Semenyih 2 intake itself.
Semenyih 2 WTP is a water supply scheme which comprises water and sludge treatment facilities
as well as an ORS system that has a storage capacity of 6 MCM. A daily FDC was derived from
the 58 years (1962–2019) transposed daily flow series at Semenyih 2 intake. Table 2-26 shows
the FDC values for various percentage of time.
Table 2-26: FDC values for Semenyih 2 intake

Semenyih 2 intake (1962-2019)
Percentile
(m³/s) (MLD)
10 50.64 4,375
20 34.83 3,009
30 26.70 2,307
40 21.49 1,857
50 17.44 1,507
60 13.99 1,209
70 11.25 972
80 8.86 766
85 7.88 681
90 6.71 580
95 5.08 439
96 4.69 405
97 4.20 363
2-74
Semenyih 2 intake (1962-2019)

Percentile
(m³/s) (MLD)
98 3.70 319
99 3.08 266
100 1.85 160
The Semenyih 2 WTP has a design capacity of 100 MLD. Considering 5% WTP losses, the raw
water requirement at the Semenyih 2 intake is 105 MLD. Based on the daily flow values
transposed from Dengkil station, the river water arriving at the intake (the flow already captures
the abstraction by Sementyih 2) is able to meet the raw water requirement at all time (365 days in
a year). The Semenyih 2 ORS with a storage capacity of 6 MCM, is able to supplement and
sustain for about two months (57 days). Hence, it can be concluded that the Semenyih 2
WTP is able to meet its raw water requirement of 105 MLD.
The Labohan Dagang WTP is a water supply scheme with an intake abstracting raw water from
Sg Langat and an ORS pond that has a storage capacity of 15 MCM. The WTP is designed with a
total capacity of 400 MLD, with phase 1 of 200 MLD started its operation in year 2018.
Abstractions located in between Dengkil station and Labohan Dagang intake have been
considered. A daily FDC was the derived for the Labohan Dagang intake catchment. Table 2-27
shows the FDC values for various percentage of time.
Table 2-27: FDC values for Labohan Dagang intake

Labohan Dagang intake (1962-2019)
Percentile
(m³/s) (MLD)
10 68.43 5,913
20 46.37 4,006
30 35.03 3,027
40 27.76 2,398
50 22.11 1,910
60 17.30 1,495
70 13.47 1,164
80 10.14 876
85 8.77 758
90 7.14 617
95 4.86 420
96 4.32 373
97 3.64 314
98 2.93 253
99 2.07 179
100 0.36 31
The Labohan Dagang WTP is currently operates under a design capacity of 200 MLD.
Considering 5% WTP losses, the raw water requirement at the Labohan Dagang intake is 210
MLD. Based on the nett available daily flow values at Labohan Dagang intake, the river
2-75
water at the intake is only able to meet the raw water requirement at 98% of the time in a
year (in average 358 days). There will be about average of 7 days in a year where the intake
is unable to supply to the required water demand. The Labohan Dagang ORS with a storage
capacity of 15 MCM, is able to supplement the 200 MLD during deficit days and sustain
another 71 days. Hence, it can be concluded that the Labohan Dagang WTP is sufficient to
meet its raw water requirement of 210 MLD with its existing ORS system.
2.4.3.14 Sg Pahang Basin – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional Analysis
In this Study, 18 WTPs in Sg Pahang basin were selected for yield assessment. 15 of these were
assessed using HP 12 (refer Section 2.4.1), one was assessed using low flow frequency analysis
(refer Section 2.4.2) and another two, namely Langat 2 and Bentong Fasa 2 are discussed in this
section.
Bentong Fasa 2
Bentong Fasa 2 WTP has the design capacity of 45.46 MLD and the raw water requirement of
47.73 MLD. It abstracts water from Sg Perting, a tributary of Sg Bentong. The intake is located just
2 km downstream of the Perting Dam. Perting Dam was initially built for silt retention and has a
storage of 13.5 MCM. Considering only small incremental area between the dam catchment and
the intake (about 2 km 2), the yield for Bentong Fasa 2 was assessed similarly to direct supply
scheme yield assessment, which is by simple water balance computation. With a storage of 13.5
MCM, Perting Dam can sustain the supply to Bentong Fasa 2 for 284 days. Therefore, the yield of
Bentong Fasa 2 WTP is considered sufficient.
From the Bentong Fasa 2 intake point, Sg Perting flows about 1.5 km and discharges into Sg
Betong. Along Sg Bentong, there will be one new WTP intake, namely Karak Fasa 2 WTP with the
design capacity of 22 MLD. The WTP is currently still under construction and expected to start
operating in January 2022. With the storage of Perting Dam, the dam is still able to sustain should
the release from the dam is required to regulate the Karak Fasa 2 WTP.
Langat 2
To cater for the increasing demand in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur, Pahang – Selangor Raw
Water Transfer (PSRWT) project was initiated. Under this project, raw water from an intake at Sg
Semantan in Sg Pahang basin which is regulated by Kelau Dam is transferred via a 44 km long
tunnel to Langat 2 WTP in Selangor (without entering Sg Langat system). Langat 2 is the largest
water supply scheme in Malaysia with an ultimate or full capacity of 2,260 MLD. It treats raw water
from the Pahang – Selangor Raw Water Transfer and distributes it within Selangor and Kuala
Lumpur (e.g. Hulu Langat, Ampang, Cheras and Sg Besi). The schematic of Langat 2 is shown in
Figure 2-19. The current design capacity for Langat 2 WTP is 1,130 MLD and its raw water
requirement is 1,186.5 MLD.
2-76
Figure 2-19: Schematic of Pahang – Selangor Raw Water Transfer and Langat 2 project
Within the Langat 2 intake catchment, there is no streamflow station to reflect the regulated flow
from both Kelau dam and Perting dam. The natural flow from Sg Lipis at Benta (4019462) was
transposed to the Langat 2 intake by excluding the dam catchments to have an initial check on the
yield at the intake under natural condition without regulation from the dams. Upstream potable
abstractions were also taken into consideration in deriving the nett available flow at the Langat 2
intake. The total upstream abstraction for Langat 2 intake is 125 MLD by Batu 4, Bentong Fasa 2,
Karak and Karak Fasa 2 WTP in Sg Bentong catchment and Sg Teras, Sg Bilut, Felda Mempaga
and Sg Kelau WTP in Sg Kelau catchment. The derived FDC is shown in Table 2-28. The FDC
shows that the flow at the Langat 2 intake is able to meet the WTP water requirement of 1,186.5
MLD at 90% of time in a year (in average 328 days).
Table 2-28: FDC values for Langat 2 intake

Langat 2 (1965-2020)
Percentile
(m³/s) (MLD)
10 119.94 10363
20 80.78 6980
30 56.78 4906
40 43.16 3729
50 34.42 2974
2-77
Langat 2 (1965-2020)
Percentile
(m³/s) (MLD)
60 28.28 2443
70 22.95 1983
80 18.41 1591
85 16.15 1395
90 13.76 1189
95 10.18 880
96 8.84 764
97 7.54 652
98 5.88 508
99 3.87 335
100 0.09 8
The Langat 2 intake is located at Sg Semantan, about 1.7 km downstream of the confluence of Sg
Bentong and Sg Kelau. Under the PSRWT project, Kelau Dam was built to regulate Sg Semantan
and ensure sufficient yield for the Langat 2 intake. Between Kelau Dam and Langat 2 intake, there
are two WTPs, Felda Mempaga WTP and Sg Kelau WTP with total raw water requirement of
20.42 MLD.
With a storage capacity of 299 MCM, Kelau Dam can supplement and sustain the supply of Felda
Mempaga, Sg Kelau and Langat 2 WTP for 248 days. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
Langat 2 intake is sufficient to meet its water requirement of 1,186.5 MLD with raw water from Sg
Semantan intake and supplemented by Kelau Dam during the low flow period. There is one WTP
abstracting water from Sg Semantan 14 km downstream of the Langat 2 intake. Considering
Mempateh WTP that has raw water requirement of 11.21 MLD, Kelau Dam can sustain the supply
of Felda Mempaga, Sg Kelau, Langat 2 and Mempateh WTP for for 245 days. Considering the full
capacity for Langat 2 WTP of 2,260 MLD, the dam can sustain the supply for 124 days.
2.4.3.15 Sg Kuantan Basin – IRBM Sg Kuantan (JPS, 2018) and Additional Analysis
The final report of IRBM Sg Kuantan by JPS in year 2018 was reviewed to assess the yield
sufficiency of study intakes located within Sg Kuantan basin. There are eight WTPs intake in Sg
Kuantan Basin (refer Table 2-29). Out of the eight WTPs, three WTPs (Pasir Kemudi WTP, Kg
Padang WTP and Bukit Goh WTP) had been closed due to pollution, flood and inefficient
production due to low water level. The coverage areas for these WTPs are now served by
Semambu WTP. Three WTPs intake assessed under this Study are Semambu WTP, Bukit Ubi
WTP and Panching WTP.
There are two major structures which have increased the raw water capacity in this basin, namely
Kuantan barrage and Chereh Dam. Kuantan barrage was built in 1985 to prevent tidal movement
and saline intrusion to the water intakes. This barrage is located 19 km upstream from Sg Kuantan
2-78
river mouth. Chereh Dam which started its operation in 2008 is located across Sg Chereh at the
upper part of the basin. It helps to regulate the yield for all the intakes from Sg Kuantan up to the
Kuantan barrage. Based on the NWRS 2011 study, the 36-months 50-year ARI yield of Chereh
Dam is 1,859 MLD.
Table 2-29: Water treatment plants in Sg Kuantan Basin

No. Water Treatment Plant Source Design Capacity (MLD)
1 Semambu* 288
2 Bukit Ubi* 36
3 Panching* 168
Sg Kuantan and regulated
4 Sg Lembing 9
by Chereh Dam
5 Bukit Sagu 8
Dam Yield: 1,859 MLD
Pasir Kemudi
6 (JPS, 2011) 11
(closed since July 2015)
Kg Padang
7 13
(closed since May 2015)
Sg Riau
Bukit Goh WTP
8 Yield: 49.41 MLD (JPS, 4
(closed since 2016)
2011)
Total design capacity for WTPs under operation 509
Note: *WTP ssessed in this Study
The total WTP demand based on the design capacity of operating WTPs in Sg Kuantan basin is
509 MLD. Chereh Dam has a yield of 1,859 MLD and under the low flow condition, it releases
water to accommodate the downstream abstractions along Sg Kuantan.
To assess the yield for Semambu WTP, Bukit Ubi WTP and Panching WTP intakes along Sg
Kuantan, data from the only streamflow station in the basin, Bukit Kenau station were utilized.
After analysing the data, it was observed that the flow records after the commencement of Chereh
Dam is too low and not reliable. In view of this, only natural series data (from 1977 to 2001) before
the Chereh Dam construction were considered. The assumption in using the natural series is to
have an initial check on the yield at the intake under the natural condition without the Chereh Dam
regulation, considering the intake is having large catchment comparing to WTP design capacity.
The flow series were transposed to each WTP intake and upstream abstractions were subtracted
from these series. The natural river yield at Panching WTP intake with catchment area of 832
km2 is 444 MLD. This is sufficient for the Panching WTP raw water demand of 176.4 MLD.
Semambu WTP and Bukit Ubi WTP intakes further downstream are located adjacent to each other
near Kobat intake, about 200 m upstream of Kuantan barrage. At the Kobat intake which has
catchment area of 1,100 km2, the natural river yield of 7Q50 is 466 MLD able to meet the the
raw water requirement of both Semambu WTP and Bukit Ubi WTP of 340.2 MLD.
2-79
Based on just the natural river yield, three WTP intakes are able to supply to the raw water
requirement even without considering the Chereh Dam release. The water release from Chereh
Dam during low flow will further increase the yield at all the three intakes. Summary of yield
for these WTPs are shown in Table 2-30.
Table 2-30: Yield for Semambu WTP, Bukit Ubi WTP and Panching WTP intakes
Raw Water Catchment Area
Water Treatment Natural River Yield
No. Requirement (km²)
Plant (MLD)
(MLD)
1 Semambu WTP 302.4 466
1,100
2 Bukit Ubi WTP 37.8 Sufficient
444
3 Panching WTP 176.4 832
Sufficient
2.4.3.16 Sg Pontian Basin (Pahang) – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011)
Sepayang WTP receives direct supply of water from Pontian Dam which is located within Sg
Pontian basin in Pahang. Pontian Dam was designed for irrigation and potable water supply
purposes.
There is no design report for Pontian Dam made available for review. According to the JPS
website, construction of Pontian Dam was completed in year 1985. NWRS 2011 study which was
conducted in a more recent year was then reviewed to assess the sufficiency of yield at the
Sepayang WTP.
Figure 2-20 shows the schematic diagram of the Pontian Dam. Water is pumped directly from
Pontian reservoir to the Sepayang WTP, which supplies potable water to the Rompin Town and
the surrounding coastal areas. In the NWRS 2011 study, detailed HEC-ResSim model has been
simulated to reassess the reservoir or system yield of all existing water supply systems in Pahang
state. The 1 in 50-year ARI nett direct supply yield of the reservoir derived in the NWRS 2011 is
259 MLD. The Sepayang WTP has a designed capacity of 36.36 MLD raw water requirement of
38.18 MLD. In view of the considerably big margin of the direct supply yield from the dam, the raw
water requirement at this intake is not critical and the yield derived from the NWRS 2011 can be
adopted.
2-80
Source: NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011)

Figure 2-20: Schematic diagram of Pontian Dam
2.4.3.17 Sg Linggi Basin – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional Analysis
There are seven WTPs in Sg Linggi Basin and four of them, namely Sg Linggi WTP, Ngoi-ngoi
WTP, Sg Terip WTP and Sawah Rajah WTP were assessed in this Study. The schematic diagram
of the existing water resources system in Sg Linggi Basin is illustrated in Figure 2-21. The basin
receives inter-basin transfer from Sg Muar Basin to augment its water resources. Sg Linggi WTP
was assessed using low flow frequency analysis while the other three WTPs were assessed using
storage sustainability.
2-81
Figure 2-21: Schematic diagram for Sg Linggi Basin
Sawah Raja
Sawah Raja WTP (with a raw water requirement of 52.5 MLD) is regulated by Ulu Sepri Dam. The
yield assessment for this WTP was firstly checked using the low flow frequency analysis without
considering the regulation from the dam. Based on the LFFA, the 7Q50 yield is 28 MLD. This yield
is insufficient to cater for the raw water requirement of 52.5 MLD. From the FDC of the long-term
flow series derived using flow transposition of Sg Linggi streamflow data at Sua Betong (1972 –
2012), it is indicated that there is on average at 2% of the time, which equivalent to an average of
7 days in a year, the flow will be less than the raw water requirement of 52.5 MLD. The FDC
values for various percentage of time is shown in Table 2-31.
2-82
Table 2-31: FDC values at Sawah Raja intake
Sawah Raja intake (1972-2012)

Percentile
(m³/s) (MLD)
10 11.954 1032.8
20 8.260 713.6
30 6.356 549.2
40 5.022 433.9
50 3.766 325.4
60 3.027 261.6
70 2.392 206.7
80 1.869 161.5
85 1.608 138.9
90 1.361 117.6
91 1.296 112.0
95 0.998 86.3
96 0.900 77.8
97 0.796 68.7
98 0.668 57.7
99 0.525 45.4
100 0.186 16.1
Since the WTP is regulated by the Ulu Sepri Dam, the sustainability of the the dam storage was
also assessed. Based on the active storage of 0.525 MCM, the dam can sustain the supply for 10
days. This indicates that scheme is able to sustain the deficit days during the low flow time with
regulation from the dam.
Ngoi-ngoi WTP and Sg Terip WTP

The Ngoi-ngoi WTP and Sg Terip WTP both receive water from the Triang Water Supply Scheme.
The components in the Triang water supply scheme are (refer to Figure 2-22):
 Sg Triang Dam
 Intake and raw water pumping station at Kg Petaseh
 Transfer tunnel from Jambatan Serong to Kg Ngoi-ngoi
 Gravity main from Sg Triang dam to tunnel inlet
 Pumping main from Petaseh intake to tunnel inlet
 Gravity main from tunnel outlet to Sg Terip Dam and Ngoi-Ngoi WTP.
2-83
Figure 2-22: Components of Triang Water Supply Scheme
Sg Triang Dam regulates the Kg Petaseh intake where the water from Kg Petaseh intake is sent
via pumping main to the transfer tunnel at Jambatan Serong. Sg Triang Dam also supplies directly
to the transfer tunnel at Jambatan Serong. At Jambatan Serong, the combined flow from the
Petaseh intake and Triang Dam flows to the outlet tunnel and flow via gravity main to Sg Terip
Dam and Ngoi-Ngoi WTP respectively.
Sg Terip WTP with raw water requirement of 319.8 MLD receives water from two sources, direct
supply from Sg Terip Dam and run-of-river from Sg Batang Penar via the Batang Penar intake.
Besides augmented by the Triang Water Supply System, Sg Terip Dam is also augmented by the
inter-basin transfer from Kelinchi Dam in Sg Muar where the Kelinchi Dam also receives water
from Talang Dam in Pahang
Under the severe drought condition, the Sg Terip WTP may cease abstraction from Sg Batang
Penar and depends fully on the supply from Sg Terip Dam which the water source is come from
Triang Water Supply Scheme. Under this circumstaces, Triang Water Supply Scheme needs to
satistfy the total raw water requirement of 465.35 MLD with 319.8 MLD by Sg Terip WTP and
145.55 MLD by Ngoi-Ngoi WTP. The Triang Dam which is the main water source for the Triang
Water Supply Scheme has a storage capacity of 50 MCM, Using the storage sustainability
2-84
approach, the dam is able to sustain for 107 days to meet the total raw water requirement of
465.35 MLD from both WTPs. This is sufficient as the dry periods in this region usually span for
about 3 months; occur two cycles a year with first in January to February and the latter in June to
August.
2.4.3.18 Sg Muar Basin – Kajian Sumber Air Negeri Johor (2010-2060) (BAKAJ, 2015)
(termed as KSANJ 2015) and Additional Analysis
There are 28 WTP intakes in Sg Muar basin. The schematic diagram of Sg Muar Basin is shown
in Figure 2-23. There are five dams located in this river basin, namely Kelinchi Dam, Talang Dam,
Gemencheh Dam, Juaseh Dam and Gunung Ledang Dam. Details of the dams are tabulated in
Table 2-32. There is a water transfer of 160 MLD from Sg Muar to Durian Tunggal Dam in Melaka
via the Grisek intake in Sg Muar.
Table 2-32: Details of dams in Sg Muar Basin
Year
No. State Name of Dam Purpose
Completed
1 Kelinchi Water supply (inter-basin storage) 1998
Negeri Water supply; flood control;
2 Talang 1992
Sembilan irrigation
3 Gemencheh Water supply; flood control 1999
4 Juaseh Water Supply 1991
Johor Gunung
5 Water Supply 1959
Ledang
Out of the 28 WTP intakes, 18 intakes (storage schemes) were selected in this Study to assess
the yield sufficiency at the intakes. It has to be noted that some intakes which are located near to
each other were grouped in this Study for the ease of yield assessment (refer Table 2-33 for the
list of study intakes).
2-85
Figure 2-23: Schematic Diagram of Sg Muar Basin
2-86
Table 2-33: List of Study intakes in Sg Muar Basin
Water Treatment Plant (WTP)

No. State Study Intake
Intake
1 Gemencheh Gemencheh
2 Negeri Jempol Jempol
3 Sembilan Kuala Jelai Kuala Jelai
4 Gemas Baru Gemas Baru
5 Palong Timur Palong Timur
6 Air Panas A
Air Panas (A+C)
7 Air Panas C
8 Kampung Tengah 1
Kampung Tengah (1+2)
9 Kampung Tengah 2
10 Bukit Hampar Bukit Hampar
11 Bukit Serampang Bukit Serampang
Johor
12 Gombang Gombang
13 Grisek Grisek
15 Pancor 4
15 Pancor 3
Pancor (1-4)
16 Pancor 1
17 Pancor 2
18 Gunung Ledang Gunung Ledang
Review of Kajian Sumber Air Negeri Johor (2010-2060) by BAKAJ in year 2015 (termed as
KSANJ 2015) was carried out to assess the sufficiency of yield at the Study intakes. However, no
yield estimation was carried out in the KSANJ 2015 study for most of the Study intakes in Sg Muar
Basin, except Gunung Ledang WTP.
Additional analysis was then carried out to assess the sufficiency of yield at other Study intakes in
the river basin. Two streamflow stations in Sg Muar Basin with reliable long-term flow records,
namely Sg Muar at Buloh Kasap and Sg Segamat at Segamat together with a streamflow station
in adjacent Sg Kesang Basin, namely Sg Kesang at Chin-Chin were used in the analysis.
Generally, the analysis was separated into four parts, according to the location, river system and
also the water supply scheme of the intakes.
Table 2-34 presents the details of yield estimation method adopted in this Study for the Study
intakes in Sg Muar Basin.
Table 2-34: Detailed yield estimation method adopted for study intakes in Sg Muar Basin
Region / River
No. Study Intake Yield Estimation Method
System
i. Review the NWRS (JPS, 2011) and
1 Gemencheh Gemencheh Dam conduct simple water balance
computation
2 Jempol Upper part of Sg i. Flow transposition using recorded
2-87
Region / River
No. Study Intake Yield Estimation Method
System
3 Kuala Jelai Muar basin flow of adjacent station – Sg Kesang
at Chin-Chin.
4 Gemas Baru
ii. Conduct low flow frequency analysis
5 Palong Timur using transposed daily flow series.
i. Flow transposition using the
naturalised flow series of Segamat
station (use data after Juaseh Dam in
6 Air Panas (A+C) Sg Juaseh
operation).
using transposed daily flow series.
7 Kampung Tengah (1+2) i. Conduct low flow frequency analysis
Sg Segamat at Segamat station (use data after
8 Bukit Hampar Juaseh Dam in operation).
i. Conduct low flow frequency analysis
at Buloh Kasap station (use data after
9 Bukit Serampang Talang Dam in operation).
at Segamat station (use data after
Juaseh Dam in operation).
10 Gombang iii. Flow transposition using recorded
flow of adjacent station – Sg Kesang
Lower part of Sg at Chin-Chin for the incremental
Muar Basin catchment from Buloh Kasap and
Segamat stations to Bukit Serampang
11 Grisek intake.
iv. Conduct low flow frequency analysis
using transposed daily flow series for
the incremental catchment.
12 Pancor (1-4) v. Estimate the yield at Bukit
Serampang intake by adding the
7Q50 derived from (i), (ii) and (iv).
Gunung Ledang WTP

Gunung Ledang WTP receives water direct supply from Gunung Ledang Dam, a potable water
supply dam which was constructed in year 1959. Based on the KSANJ study, the gross yield of
the dam is 22 MLD. After considering compensation flow of 8.36 MLD, the nett yield of the
Gunung Ledang Dam is found to be 13.64 MLD. It was found that the nett yield of Gunung
Ledang Dam (13.64 MLD) is insufficient to meet the raw water requirement of the Gunung
Ledang WTP (14.32 MLD) if it has to comply to the compensation release. Thus, it is advised
that during extreme droughts where the yield of the dam is insufficient to meet the raw water
requirement of the WTP, the priority should give to the potable water supply where no
compensation flow should release to the downstream of the dam.
2-88
Upper part of Sg Muar basin intakes - Jempol, Kuala Jelai, Gemas Baru and Palong Timur
This group of WTP intakes located at the upper part of Sg Muar Basin are being regulated by the
release from Talang Dam during low flow period. Talang Dam also supplies water to Kelinchi Dam
via pumping and direct supply to the Talang WTP at the same time.
From the Talang Dam release records (2015–2020) provided by SAINS, it can be seen that the
regulation of downstream intakes by Talang Dam is not frequent, with an average of 0–2% of
occurrence a year. This indicates that the Talang dam will only regulate its downstream intakes
when it is necessary during droughts.
In the yield assessment for this group of intakes, the natural river yield at the intakes was first
derived to assess the flow availability under the natural condition without the release from Talang
dam. The dam catchment of Talang dam was excluded from the analysis for the upper part of Sg
Muar basin. Recorded flow of Sg Kesang at Chin-Chin (natural catchment) which located in
adjacent river basin was then used to represent the natural flow characteristics of these intake
catchment. The analysis findings are shown in Table 2-36 below.
The derived 7Q50 at the last intake of this group, Palong Timur intake is 158.2 MLD, without
considering upstream potable abstractions. It was found that the total raw water
requirement for all the intakes located at the upstream of Palong Timur intake including
Palong Timur intake is 281.4 MLD. A release of 123.2 MLD from Talang Dam is required up
to Palong Timur intake to ensure sufficient yield for the four Study intakes in the upper part
of Sg Muar basin during the drought.
From the past six years of dam release records, water release from Talang Dam to downstream is
ranging from 86.4 MLD to 190.9 MLD. A daily FDC was derived at Palong Timur intake using the
60 years (1961–2020) transposed daily flow series. Table 2-35 shows the FDC values for various
percentage of time. It was shown that the river water at the intake is able to meet the raw
water requirement at 94% of time in a year (in average 343 days). In other words, there is an
average of 22 days (6%) in a year where water shall be supplemented by Talang Dam
release to Sg Muar up to Palong Timur intake.
2-89
Table 2-35: FDC values for Palong Timur intake
Palong Timur intake
Percentile
(m³/s) (MLD)
10 72.10 6,230
20 46.75 4,040
30 33.52 2,896
40 24.93 2,154
50 19.01 1,643
60 14.22 1,229
70 10.28 888
80 7.46 645
85 6.34 548
90 4.93 426
94 3.66 316
95 3.24 280
96 2.96 256
97 2.53 219
98 2.25 195
99 1.83 158
100 0.28 24
It was found from the past five years records of water transfer from Talang Dam to Kelinchi Dam
that the maximum transferred amount is 207.1 MLD. Assuming Talang Dam storage of 40 MCM is
going to supply to Kelinchi Dam (maximum transfer records of 207.1 MLD) as well as direct suppy
to Talang WTP (1.2 MLD), and at the same time release to downstream to regulates WTP intakes
(190.9 MLD, deficit during the 7Q50), with a total raw water requirement of 399.2 MLD, the
storage of Talang reservoir is able to sustain for 100 days. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the yield at the Palong Timur intake is sufficient to meet the total raw water
requirement of 281.4 MLD with dam release from Talang Dam.
Air Panas (A+C)

For Air Panas (A+C) which abstract water from Sg Juaseh and regulated by Juaseh Dam
(completed in 1991), the yield assessment was carried using the 29 years of recorded flow at Sg
Segamat station after the completion of the Juasah Dam (1992 to 2020). Similar to the Cheras
Mile 11 regulated by the Langat Dam, the low flow frequency analysis utilising the station data
after the Juaseh Dam is used as an indication to assess the performance of the intake after the
implementation of the Juaseh Dam release. The considerable long records of 29 years at the
station which include the 97/98 and 2014 drought years is also sufficient to represent regulated
flow regime in the catchment.
The potable abstractions (i.e. Air Panas A & C, Pemanis, Kampung Tengah 1 & 2, and Bukit
Hampar) which located upstream of the Segamat station were added to the recorded flow at
Segamat station to naturalise the flow. Only flow series after the Juaseh Dam in operation were
2-90
used to reflect the regulating effects from the dam. The analysis findings are tabulated in Table
2-36 above. It was shown that the derived yield at the Air Panas (A+C) intake (39.6 MLD) is
sufficient to meet the total raw water requirement of Air Panas A and C WTPs (26.81 MLD).
Sg Segamat – Kampung Tengah (1+2) and Bukit Hampar

Hydrological yield for Kampung Tengah (1+2) and Bukit Hampar intakes which abstract water from
Sg Segamat are also being regulated by the release from Juaseh Dam. The yield assessment for
this group of intakes were estimated by conducting low flow frequency analysis using recorded
flow at Segamat station after the commencement of Juaseh Dam. It has to be noted that all
abstractions upstream of the station, including the abstraction by Kampung Tengah (1+2) and
Bukit Hampar intakes were reflected in the recorded flow data of Segamat station. Table 2-36
above summarized the result of the analysis for Kampung Tengah (1+2) and Bukit Hampar intakes.
The estimated yield at the Segamat station is 101.3 MLD. This indicates that the yield at
Segamat station is sufficient to meet the raw water requirement of Kampung Tengah (1+2)
and Bukit Hampar WTPs (61.5 MLD) even after accounting for the abstraction by these
intakes.
Lower Part of Sg Muar Basin – Bukit Serampang, Gombang, Grisek, Panchor (1 to 4)

This group of intakes located at the lower part of Sg Muar are also being regulated by Talang Dam
during the low flow period. Analysis for study intakes in lower part of Sg Muar basin was carried
out by adding the 7Q50 at Buloh Kasap (used data from 1996 to 2020, after Talang Dam in
operation since 1992) and Segamat stations (used data from 1992 to 2020, after Juaseh Dam in
operation since 1991) with the 7Q50 derived for the incremental catchment from Buloh Kasap and
Segamat stations to Bukit Serampang intake (the most upstream intake for the group of lower part
basin). Both Buloh Kasap and Segamat stations data has captured the drought year of 97/98 and
2014 and representative of the regulated catchment flow regime after the implementation of the
dams.
It was shown in Table 2-36 that the total 7Q50 arriving at the Bukit Serampang intake is 314.3
MLD. This amount is sufficient to meet the total raw water requirement for Bukit Serampang,
Gombang and Grisek incuding the transer to Durian Tunggal Dam of 236.56 MLD, but
insufficient to meet the raw water requirement for Panchor 1 to 4 intake located at the most
downstream. The 7Q50 was derved based on the flow data that has refleced the historical
Talang Dam release. Under the critical drought condition, the release from Talang Dam can
be increased to regulate the river flow for this group of intakes at the lower Sg Muar. The
release of Gemencheh Dam can also help to increase the flow during drought period.
Gemencheh
There are two water sources for Gemencheh WTP which are Gemencheh Dam and Sg Asahan.
Sg Asahan is only able to supply <30% of water requirement if the river water level is high.
2-91
However, it has been 12 years that Sg Asahan could not be operated due to its lower water level.
Thus, Gemencheh WTP is considered as direct supply scheme served by Gemencheh Dam. More
detailed information on the dam in the design report is not made available for review. In this Study,
the yield for Gemencheh WTP was indicated based on storage sustainability using simple water
balance method. The Gemencheh WTP requires total raw water of 47.72 MLD. The storage of
30.8 MCM by the dam can sustain for 645 days which suggests that the yield more than sufficient.
2-92
Table 2-36: Summary of findings for regulated intakes
Total Raw Water

Raw Water Total Upstream
Region / Requirement at 7Q50 Sufficiency of
Study Intakes Requirement Abstractions to be
River System Study Intakes (MLD) Yield
(MLD) Considered (MLD)
(MLD)
Jempol 58.28 17.65 74.93 Yes with the
Upper part of Kuala Jelai 119.33 92.83 221.2 release from
Sg Muar Gemas Baru 38.18 236 274.2 *158.2 Talang Dam
Basin during deficit
Palong Timur 7.16 274.2 281.4
times
Sg Juaseh Air Panas (A+C) 26.8 - 26.8 39.6 Yes
Kampung Tengah
46.58 - Yes
Sg Segamat (1+2) 61.5 **101.3
Bukit Hampar 14.89 - Yes
Bukit Serampang 4.78 3.13 7.9 Yes
Gombang 3.34 7.91 11.3 Yes
65.31 and 160
Lower part of
Grisek transfer to DT 11.25 236.56 Yes
Sg Muar ***314.3
dam
Basin
No (Talang Dam
Pancor (1-4) 108.82 236.56 345.38 release can be
increased)
Note: * The derived 7Q50 is natural gross yield at the Palong intake without consideration of upstream potable abstractions and Talang Dam release.
The natural gross yield itself is insufficient to meet the raw water requirement and the release from Talang Dam is required during the deficit time.
** The 7Q50 was derived at the Segamat station where all the upstream abstractions (including Kampung Tengah 1 &2 and Bukit Hampar) are
reflected in the recorded flow.
*** The 7Q50 was derived at Bukit Serampang intake, taking into account all the abstractions upstream of the Buloh Kasap and Segamat stations
and reflects the historical Talang Dam Release.
2-93
2.4.3.19 Sg Johor Basin - Draft Concept Design Report of Projek Pembangunan Off-River-
Storage (ORS) Sg Johor (BBA, 2020) (termed as Sg Johor ORS), Kajian Sumber Air Negeri
Johor (2010-2060) (BAKAJ, 2015) (termed as KSANJ 2015) and Additional Analysis
There are 10 WTPs’ intakes in Sg Johor Basin as presented in Table 2-37 and schematic diagram
in Figure 2-24. All of these WTPs were assessed under this Study, except for Johor River Water
Works (JRWW) which is operated by PUB Singapore. Dams constructed in the river basin are
Linggiu dam, Seluyut dam, Layang dam and Lebam dam. Sg Johor barrage was completed in
2016 and helps to prevent saline intrusion to the water intakes. All of the WTPs in the basin are
located upstream of this barrage, except Sg Layang WTP and Sg Lebam WTP.
Table 2-37: Water treatment plants in Sg Johor basin

Water Treatment Plant
No. Source Design Capacity (MLD)
(WTP)
1 *Bandar Tenggara Sg Pengeli 27.26
*Batu 2 (Bandar Kota
2 Sg Pelepah 3.18
Tinggi)
3 *Sg Sayong 1 Sg Sayong 13.64
4 *Sg Sayong 2 Sg Sayong 31.82
5 *Semangar 318.23
493
Sg Johor and Regulated by
6 *Sg Johor (175 MLD is pumped to
Linggiu Dam
Layang Dam)
Yield for Linggiu dam: 1,325
7 *Linggiu 1.82
MLD
Johor River Water Works
8 1,136.5
(JRWW)
Upper and Lower Layang Dam
9 *Sg Layang 358
Yield: 138.23 MLD (JPS, 2011)
 Lebam Dam
Yield: 44 MLD (JPS, 2011)
10 *Sg Lebam 54.55
 Transfer from Seluyut Dam
of 30 MLD
Total abstraction from WTPs 2,438
*WTP assessed in this Study
2-94
Sg Johor at Rantau Panjang station
Figure 2-24: Schematic Diagram of the WTP intakes in Sg Johor basin
2-95
Bandar Tenggara, Sg Sayong 1 & 2 and Batu 2
Out of the nine WTPs’ intake that need to be assessed, four are run-of-river intakes, namely
Bandar Tenggara, Sg Sayong 1, Sg Sayong 2 and Batu 2 WTPs. There is no yield analysis been
carried out for these WTPs in the Sg Johor ORS study. Thus, the KSANJ 2015 study was
reviewed. Run-of-river yield of these intakes was estimated in the KSANJ 2015 study using the Sg
Johor at Rantau Panjang station as the principal station. Table 2-38 below summarized the run-of-
river yield extracted from the KSANJ 2015 study.
Table 2-38: Run-of-river yield extracted from KSANJ 2015 study
Water Design 7Q50 Estimated Yield from

No. Treatment Capacity Water Source NWRS 2011 Study
(m3/s) (MLD)
Plant (WTP) (MLD) (MLD)
Bandar
1 27.26 Sg Pengeli 0.24 21 41.5
Tenggara
2 Sg Sayong 1 13.64 Sg Sayong
1.40 121 120
3 Sg Sayong 2 31.82 Sg Sayong
Batu 2 (Bandar
4 3.18 Sg Pelepah 0.02 1 4.03
Kota Tinggi)
Source: KSANJ 2015 (BAKAJ, 2015) and NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011)
It was shown that the derived 7Q50 of Sg Sayong 1 and 2 (121 MLD) are very similar with the
estimated yield from NWRS 2011 study (120 MLD). Hence, the 7Q50 derived from the KSANJ
2015 study was adopted in this Study as the yield at Sg Sayong 1 and 2 intakes. By
considering the 5% WTP losses, the raw water requirement at Sg Sayong 1 and 2 intakes
are 14.32 MLD and 33.41 MLD respectively. The yield of 121 MLD at Sg Sayong 1 and 2
intakes is sufficient to meet the total raw water requirement of these two WTPs (47.73 MLD).
On the other hand, for Bandar Tenggara and Batu 2 intakes, the derived 7Q50 from the KSANJ
2015 study is far different from the estimated yield of the NWRS 2011 study (refer Table 2-38).
This might be due to the selection of Rantau Panjang station as the principal station for the
derivation of 7Q50. The recorded flow at Rantau Panjang station has been regulated by Linggiu
Dam located upstream; hence, it is not suitable to be used in the analysis for Bandar Tenggara
and Batu 2 intakes which abstracts water from tributary of Sg Johor, namely Sg Pengeli and Sg
Pelepah respectively.
Additional analysis was then carried out for Bandar Tenggara and Batu 2 intakes using another
streamflow station in Sg Johor basin with reliable long-term flow records and similar catchment
size, namely Sg Sayong at Jam. Johor Tenggara. The recorded flow at Jam. Johor Tenggara
station was transposed to Bandar Tenggara and Batu 2 intake catchment by using area and
rainfall proportional method. Then, low flow frequency analysis was carried out to derive the 7Q50
at the two intakes.
2-96
Table 2-39 shows the derived 7-day low flow of various ARIs at Bandar Tenggara and Batu 2
intakes. It shows that the 7Q50 at Bandar Tenggara and Batu 2 intakes are 31.9 MLD and
2.34 MLD respectively. This indicates that the yield at Bandar Tenggara intake is sufficient
to meet the raw water requirement of the WTP (28.62 MLD), but the yield at Batu 2 intake is
insufficient to meet its current water abstraction of 3.86 MLD. The summary of the 7Q50
adopted for these four run-of-river intakes are shown in Table 2-40 below.
Table 2-39: Derived 7-day low flow of various ARIs at Bandar Tenggara and Batu 2 intakes
Bandar Tenggara Batu 2
ARI (year)
(m³/s) (MLD) (m³/s) (MLD)
2 0.83 72.1 0.06 5.28
5 0.53 45.6 0.04 3.34
10 0.44 37.8 0.032 2.77
20 0.40 34.1 0.029 2.50
50 0.37 31.9 0.027 2.34
100 0.36 31.2 0.026 2.28
Table 2-40: Summary of run-of-river yield adopted in this Study (Sg Muar basin)
Water Treatment Raw Water 7Q50 Sufficiency of Deficit

No.
Plant (WTP) Requirement (MLD) (MLD) Yield (MLD)
1 Bandar Tenggara 28.62 31.9 Yes -
2 Sg Sayong 1 14.32 Yes -
121
3 Sg Sayong 2 33.41 Yes -
4 Batu 2 3.86 2.34 No 1.52
Sg Layang and Sg Lebam WTP

In the Sg Johor ORS study, the yield for Sg Layang and Sg Lebam WTPs was adopted from the
NWRS 2011 study, which is 138.38 MLD and 44 MLD respectively. Review of KSANJ 2015 study
was then carried out to substantiate the yield derived from the NWRS 2011 study.
There are two reservoirs within the Sg Layang catchment; Upper Layang Dam and Lower Layang
Dam. The Lower Layang Dam is on the eastern part of the Upper Layang Dam. Based on the
KSANJ 2015 study, total direct supply yield from both Upper and Lower Layang Dam is 106.44
MLD, with the consideration of compensation flow of 6.5 MLD for each of the dam. It was found
that the maximum yield that could be available for Sg Layang WTP after including the
compensation flows and water pumped from Sg Johor WTP is only 294.44 MLD (106.44 MLD +
6.5 MLD + 6.5 MLD + 175 MLD). This maximum available yield of 294.44 MLD is insufficient
to meet the raw water requirement of 375.9 MLD at Sg Layang WTP.
Sg Lebam WTP receives water direct supply from Lebam Dam. The previously reported reliable
yield of Lebam Dam in the NWRS 2011 study is 44 MLD. Based on the KSANJ 2015 study, the
gross yield that can be obtained from Lebam Dam is 50 MLD. After considering compensation flow
of 7 MLD, the nett yield of the dam is found to be 43 MLD which is very similar to the safe yield
2-97
findings from NWRS 2011 study. It was found that the nett yield of Lebam Dam (43 MLD) is
insufficient to meet the raw water requirement of the Sg Lebam WTP (57.28 MLD). With 30
MLD of raw water transfer from Seluyut Dam, a total yield of 73 MLD is sufficient for Sg
Lebam WTP to produce at its designed capacity.
Sg Johor, Semangar and Linggiu WTP

The yield of Sg Johor, Semangar and Linggiu WTPs are not provided in the Sg Johor ORS and
KSANJ 2015. The yield at these intakes were assessed by utilizing the streamflow data at the Sg
Johor at Rantau Panjang station from 1994 to 2019. This station is 5 km downstream of Linggiu
WTP, 7 km upstream from Semangar WTP and 14 km upstream of Sg Johor WTP (refer Figure
2-24). Sg Johor has been regulated by the Linggiu dam since its completion in 1993. In assessing
the yield at Sg Johor, Semangar and Linggiu WTPs, the streamflow data from 1994 onwards are
used to reflect the Linggiu Dam release to regulate the intakes along Sg Johor. FDC was adopted
to illustrate the flow availability at the respective intake at different percentage of time and the
average numbers of deficit days.
Table 2-41 shows the FDC at Sg Johor at Rantau Panjang station, Linggiu WTP and Sg Johor
WTP. The flow at Rantau Panjang station is directly used to assess the available flow or yield for
Semangar WTP. Flow from the station is transposed to Linggiu WTP intake based on catchment
area difference. For Sg Johor WTP, the flow at Rantau Panjang station is transposed to the Sg
Johor WTP and FDC is computed after subtracting the abstraction of 509.14 MLD by Semangar
WTP and Layang Dam
Based on the FDC values, the arriving flow at Rantau Panjang station is more than the raw water
requirement for Semangar WTP of 334.14 MLD. Having a very small raw water requirement of
only 1.91 MLD, the flow availability at Linggiu WTP intake is also sufficient. For Sg Johor WTP, the
FDC shows that at 3% of the time (equivalent to an average of 11 days in a year), the river flow
arriving at Sg Johor WTP intake is less than 334.14 MLD and insufficient to meet the raw water
requirement for the intake.
Table 2-41: FDC values at Sg Johor, Semangar and Linggiu WTPs

Sg Johor at Rantau
Linggiu WTP Sg Johor WTP
Percentile Panjang station
(m³/s) (MLD) (m³/s) (MLD) (m³/s) (MLD)
10 51.90 4485 50.77 4387 60.81 5254
20 37.16 3211 36.35 3141 41.93 3623
30 29.75 2570 29.10 2514 32.40 2799
40 25.02 2162 24.48 2115 26.27 2270
50 21.59 1865 21.12 1825 21.86 1889
60 18.77 1622 18.36 1586 18.24 1576
70 16.13 1393 15.78 1363 14.85 1283
80 13.52 1168 13.23 1143 11.49 993
85 12.23 1057 11.97 1034 9.85 851
2-98
Sg Johor at Rantau
Linggiu WTP Sg Johor WTP
Percentile Panjang station
(m³/s) (MLD) (m³/s) (MLD) (m³/s) (MLD)
90 10.87 939 10.63 919 8.09 699
95 9.08 785 8.88 767 5.79 501
96 8.55 739 8.36 723 5.17 447
97 8.08 698 7.90 683 4.52 391
98 7.35 635 7.19 621 3.65 316
99 6.56 567 6.42 555 2.61 225
100 4.84 418 4.74 409 0.64 55
2.4.3.20 Sg Batu Pahat Basin – Kajian Sumber Air Negeri Johor (2010-2060) (BAKAJ, 2015)
(termed as KSANJ 2015)
The yield for three storage scheme WTPs located within Sg Batu Pahat Basin, namely Sembrong
Barat, Parit Raja 4 and Sri Gading WTP were assessed by reviewing the KSANJ 2015 study. The
schematic diagram for the using water resources in Sg Batu Pahat Basin is shown in Figure 2-25.
Figure 2-25: Schematic diagram of Sg Batu Pahat Basin
There are presently two dams within the Sg Batu Pahat Basin, namely Sembrong Dam and Bekok
Dam. Sembrong Dam is a multi-purpose flood control and water supply dam which was
constructed in 1984 and formed part of the Western Johore Integrated Development Project. The
dam is a direct supply dam providing raw water to the Sembrong Barat WTP which has a design
capacity of 80 MLD.
2-99
Based on the KSANJ 2015 study, the nett yield of Sembrong Dam is 85.1 MLD after
considering compensation flow of 26.68 MLD. This nett yield of Sembrong Dam is found to
be sufficient to meet the design capacity of the Sembrong Barat WTP.
Three dam operation control curves for Sembrong Dam was presented in the KSANJ 2015 study;
one for the normal abstraction rate of 80 MLD, one for a low abstraction of 50 MLD, and one for
higher abstraction rate of 110 MLD (see Figure 2-26 and Figure 2-27).
Source: KSANJ 2015 (BAKAJ, 2015)

Figure 2-26: Operation control curve for Sembrong Dam (plotted by storage volumes)
2-100

Figure 2-27: Operation control curve for Sembrong Dam (plotted by reservoir elevations)
Similar with Sembrong Dam, Bekok Dam was constructed in year 1990 for flood mitigation and
potable water supply purposes. It was also a component of the Western Johore Integrated
Development Project. The dam used to be a regulating dam which supplies water to three
downstream WTPs, with a common intake at Parit Hamil. However, in March 2008, it has been
changed to a direct raw water transfer from Bekok reservoir to the Yong Peng 2 and 3, Parit Raja
4 and Sri Gading WTPs via pipelines. Under this scheme, a raw water intake and pumping station
at Bekok Dam with two sets of pumping plant; one with 90 MLD capacity to Yong Peng 2 and 3
WTPs and another with 150 MLD capacity to Parit Raja 4 and Sri Gading WTPs.
In the KSANJ 2015 study, the derived gross yield of the Bekok Dam is 242.1 MLD. After
considering compensation flow of 49.25 MLD, the nett yield of the Bekok Dam is found to
be 192.86 MLD and is insufficient to meet the existing capacity of the pumping plant (90
MLD + 150 MLD = 240 MLD). Thus, it is advised that during extreme droughts where the
yield of the dam is insufficient to meet the existing pumping plant capacity, the priority
should give to the potable water supply where no compensation flow should release to the
downstream of the dam.
In addition, three sets of dam operation control curves were generated for Bekok Dam in the
KSANJ 2015 study; one for the existing abstraction of 240 MLD, another 2 for a lower abstraction
2-101
rate of 180 MLD and 170 MLD. The derived dam operation control curves for Bekok Dam as a
direct supply dam is shown in Figure 2-28 and Figure 2-29.

Figure 2-28: Operation control curve for Bekok Dam (plotted by storage volumes)

Figure 2-29: Operation control curve for Bekok Dam (plotted by reservoir elevations)
2-102
2.4.3.21 Sg Endau Basin – Kajian Sumber Air Negeri Johor (2010-2060) (BAKAJ, 2015)
(termed as KSANJ 2015), NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional Analysis
Within Sg Endau Basin, there are five WTPs selected for yield assessment in this Study, namely
Endau, Nitar, Kahang Baru, Kahang Timor and Sembrong Timor WTPs. Schematic diagram of the
rivers, dams and WTPs in the Basin is shown in Figure 2-30. The yield for Nitar, Kahang Baru and
Sembrong Timor WTP were derived using HP 12 as shown in Section 2.4.1. The yield is sufficient
in meeting the raw water requirement by the each WTP. The yield for Endau WTP was assessed
by reviewing the KSANJ 2015 and the yield for Kahang Timor WTP was derived using simple
water balance computation.
Figure 2-30: Schematic diagram for Sg Endau Basin
Endau WTP
The existing Endau WTP capacity is 5.46 MLD and was upgraded to 10 MLD in year 2005. The
Endau WTP receives direct supply of water from Labong Dam, an irrigation and potable water
supply dam constructed in 1949 to supply water for the Endau Plain Irrigation Scheme, Stage 1,
and to Endau area for domestic use.
2-103
The KSANJ 2015 study was reviewed to assess the sufficiency of yield at the Endau WTP.
According to the study findings, the yield that can be supplied by the Labong Dam is 45
MLD. This direct supply yield of Labong Dam is sufficient to meet the design capacity of
Endau WTP (10 MLD).
In addition, three sets of dam operation control curves were presented for Labong Dam in the
KSANJ 2015 study; one at 10 MLD abstraction which is the existing abstraction rate of Endau
WTP, one lower abstraction of 8 MLD and one higher abstraction of 15 MLD. The derived dam
operation control curves for Labong Dam as a direct supply dam is shown in Figure 2-31 and
Figure 2-32 below.

Figure 2-31: Operation control curve for Labong Dam (plotted by storage volumes)
2-104

Figure 2-32: Operation control curve for Labong Dam (plotted by reservoir elevations)
Kahang Timor
Kahang Dam was completed in 2017 and has a storage capacity of 21 MCM. It encompasses a
catchment area of 62 km2, impounding Sg Kahang and other smaller tributaries. Kahang Dam was
proposed in NWRS 2011 to increase water supply reliability to Kluang town as well as alleviate the
water resources shortage problem for Sembrong Timor WTP.
According to NWRS 2011 and KSANJ 2015, Sembrong Timor WTP which is currently abstracting
water from Sg Sembrong has experienced water crisis in 2010 causing its serving area, Paloh to
have water shortage for five days. Zero production in February and March 2010 by the WTP
occurred due to dry river at the intake.
Subsequent to the completion of Kahang Dam, a new WTP namely Kahang WTP is constructed to
treat and distribute water from Kahang Dam. The WTP is still under construction. Currently,
Kahang Dam is used to supplement the yield for Kahang Baru WTP, Kahang Timor WTP and
Sembrong Timor WTP, with raw water requirement of 3.34 MLD, 5.73 MLD and 27.47 MLD.
Kahang Baru WTP and Sembrong Timor yield has been assessed in this Study using HP12 and
the yield for these WTPs are found sufficient. Kahang Timor WTP yield was assessed by using a
simple water balance computation by considering the storage capacity of Kahang Dam. Based on
the water balance computation, Kahang dam can sustain the supply to Kahang Baru WTP,
2-105
Kahang Timor WTP and Sembrong Timor WTP with total raw water requirement of 36.54 MLD for
575 days. With the completion of Kahang WTP in the future with an additional raw water
requirement of 110.8 MLD, Kahang Dam is able to sustain the supply for 143 days. Thus, it can be
concluded that the yield for Kahang Timor WTP, Kahang Baru WTP and Sembrong Timor WTP is
sufficient when supplemented by Kahang Dam.
2.4.3.22 Sg Benut Basin – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional Analysis
In Sg Benut Basin, there is only one WTP which is Simpang Renggam WTP, which has design
capacity of 64 MLD and raw water requirement of 82.9 MLD. It is regulated by Machap Dam. This
dam functions as water supply and flood storage. The live storage of the dam is 12.3 MCM.
According to NWRS 2011, the yield of the dam is 56 MLD. Simpang Renggam WTP’s yield was
assessed in comparison with the Machap Dam’s storage. The storage can sustain for 148 days to
cater for sufficient yield to Simpang Renggam WTP.
2.4.3.23 Sg Pulai Basin – Kajian Sumber Air Negeri Johor (2010-2060) (BAKAJ, 2015)
(termed as KSANJ 2015)
Review of KSANJ 2015 study was conducted to assess the sufficiency of yield at the Gunung
Pulai WTP located within Sg Pulai basin. Based on the study report, the Gunung Pulai WTP
abstracts water from Pulai Dam system that comprises of Pulai Dam I, II, III and Pontian Kecil
Dam. Water from Pulai II reservoir flows by gravity into Pulai II reservoir and water is subsequently
supplied by gravity to Gunung Pulai WTP. Whereas, Pulai I reservoir supplies by gravity into
Pontian Kecil reservoir and water is then pumped from Pontian Kecil reservoir to Gunung Pulai
WTP. The schematic diagram for Sg Pulai Basin is shown in Figure 2-33.
2-106
Figure 2-33: Schematic diagram for Sg Pulai Basin
An integrated hydrodynamic model had been set up in the study in order to assess the yield at
Gunung Pulai WTP. The hydrodynamic modelling software used for the simulation of the whole
system is the MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic model by DHI. Pulai Dam system that consists of four main
dams, namely Pulai I, II, III and Pontian Kecil Dam together with the Gunung Pulai WTP were all
simulated as a big integrated model in order to reliably model the water transfer between the dams
and the plant. The 1 in 50-year long-term daily design low flows which serve as the main input to
the entire system were transposed from the daily design low flow time series of JRWW intake at
Kota Tinggi.
Table 2-42 summarizes the 1 in 50-year yield obtained from the model results for Pulai I, II, III and
Pontian Kecil Dam. From the simulation results, the 1 in 50-year yield at Gunung Pulai WTP is
computed to be 51 MLD. It was found that the yield at Gunung Pulai WTP is insufficient to meet
the its design capacity of 81.83 MLD.
It is concluded in the KSANJ 2015 study that upgrading of the plant is not recommended
due to limited yield, and the treated water output of Gunung Pulai is recommended to be
maintained at 51 MLD with pumping from Pontian Kecil reservoir at 41 MLD and releases
from Pulai II at 10 MLD.
2-107
Table 2-42: 1 in 50-year yield estimated for Pulai Dam system and Gunung Pulai WTP
50-year ARI Yield

Name of Dam
(m³/s) (MLD)
Pulai I 0.141 12.2
Pulai II 0.212 18.4
Pulai III 0.038 3.3
Pontian Kecil 0.375 32.4
Gunung Pulai WTP 0.590 51.0
2.4.3.24 Sg Tenglu Besar Basin – Kajian Sumber Air Negeri Johor (2010-2060) (BAKAJ,
2015) (termed as KSANJ 2015)
The KSANJ 2015 study was reviewed in this study to assess the yield sufficiency at Tenglu WTP.
The Tenglu WTP with a design capacity of 15 MLD, receives direct supply of water from Congok
Dam, a potable water supply dam which was constructed in 1960.
According to the study findings, the gross direct supply yield that can be obtained from the
Congok Dam is 22.47 MLD. After considering compensation flow of 8.37 MLD, the nett yield
of the Congok Dam is found to be 14.1 MLD which is quite close with the nett yield from the
NWRS 2011 study of about 15 MLD. It was found that the nett yield of Congok Dam (14.1
MLD) is insufficient to meet the raw water requirement of the Tenglu WTP (15.75 MLD) if it
has to comply to the compensation release.
Thus, it is advised that during extreme droughts where the yield of the dam is insufficient to meet
the raw water requirement of the WTP, the priority should give to the potable water supply where
no compensation flow should release to the downstream of the dam.
2-108
2.4.3.25 Sg Kesang Basin – NWRS 2011 (JPS, 2011) and Additional Analysis
There are only three WTPs in Sg Kesang Basin namely Asahan, Merlimau and Chin-Chin (refer
Figure 2-34 for the schematic diagram). The raw water requirements for these WTPs are 5 MLD,
57.75 MLD and 21 MLD, respectively. Chin-chin WTP and Merlimau WTP are run-of-river scheme
which abstract water from Sg Kesang. The yield of Chin-Chin WTP is 25.2 MLD (assessed using
HP 12 in Section 2.4.1), which is sufficient for the WTP. The yield for Merlimau WTP is 24.9 MLD
(assessed using low flow frequency method in Section 2.4.2) and it is insufficient to meet the raw
water requirement of the WTP.
Asahan Dam located in the basin with an active storage of 0.7 MCM provides direct supply to
Asahan WTP. According to NWRS 2011, Sg Kesang is not regulated by the dam. The raw water
requirement for Asahan WTP is 5 MLD. Based on the storage of Asahan Dam of 0.7 MCM, the
dam is able to sustain its supply to Asahan WTP for 140 days.
Based on the yield assessment for Merlimau WTP using low flow frequency analysis, the yield of
24.9 MLD is insufficient to meet its raw requirement of 57.75 MLD. Based on FDC, this only
occurs 2% of the time or equals to an average of seven days in a year. Since there is sufficient
water to be supplied to Asahan WTP duing the low flow condition, the dam storage can be utilized
to supplement to Merlimau WTP for about 10 days during low flow.
Figure 2-34: Schematic diagram for Sg Kesang Basin
2-109
2.4.3.26 Sg Melaka Basin – NAWABS Sg Melaka (JPS, 2019/2020) and Additional Analysis
Five WTPs that are located within Sg Melaka basin were assessed in this Study, as tabulated in
Table 2-44.
In order to assess the sufficiency of yield at the intake of these WTPs, the NAWABS Sg Melaka
study conducted by JPS in year 2019/2020 was reviewed. The schematic diagram of Sg Melaka
basin is presented in Figure 2-35.
There are two dams in Sg Melaka basin, namely Durian Tunggal Dam and Jus Dam. Durian
Tunggal Dam was constructed in 1974 and was subsequently raised in 1992. The dam has a
catchment area of 41.4 km2 and an impounded area of 5.8 km 2. Initially it was built to regulate the
flows of Sg Melaka at the pump intake and water supply for Bertam DAF at maximum 109 MLD
since 1998. Jus Dam was constructed in 2000 and began operation in 2003. After 2003, water
from Durian Tunggal Dam could be pumped to fill up Jus Dam at 100 MLD. Jus Dam has a
catchment area of 22 km² and an impounded area of 5.5 km².
Existing key infrastructure of reservoir available for the basin are Jus Dam (45 MCM) and Durian
Tunggal Dam (32.6 MCM) whereas existing storages available for the basin are Bunded Storage I
(0.85 MCM) and Bunded Storage II (0.47 MCM).
2-110
Figure 2-35: Schematic diagram of Sg Melaka Basin
Durian Tunggal Dam is supplied and filled naturally from the catchment runoff and both Bunded
Storage I and II alternatively (Bunded Storage I and II obtain raw water from Sg Melaka at the
downstream of Durian Tunggal Dam). It stores water for direct supply to treatment plant DAF I and
DAF II. Jus Dam, on the other hand is supplied and filled naturally from catchment runoff and
supplies water to Jus WTP.
Besides the complicated pumping scheme in within the basin, the Durian Tunggal dam also
supplemented by the water transfer from neighbouring Sg Muar (Grisek). Water from neighbouring
Sg Kesang river basin is also being transferred to Sg Melaka at the downstream of the Durian
Tunggal Dam during drought.
2-111
Summary of the overall scenario that have been implemented in Sg Melaka are as follows:
1) Gadek WTP (70 MLD) receives water supply directly from Sg Batang Melaka upstream,
with regulation from Jus Dam
2) Jus Dam receives supply only from catchment runoff.
3) Jus Dam supplies water to Jus WTP (5.54 MLD).
4) Durian Tunggal Dam is supplied and filled naturally from the catchment runoff and pumps
water to Bunded Storage I (77.5 MLD) for temporary storage downstream.
5) Durian Tunggal Dam receives supply from both Bunded Storage I (93 MLD) and Bunded
Storage II (202 MLD).
6) Durian Tunggal Dam permanently supplies water for DAF I (126 MLD) and DAF II (126
MLD) via direct pumping.
7) Bunded Storage I receive water supply from both Durian Tunggal Dam and river, then
releases supply to Sebukor WTP (82 MLD)
8) Bunded Storage II receives water supply from Bunded Storage I naturally without pump.
9) Bertam WTP (200 MLD) receives supply from the river via pump.
Drought condition basically represents low rainfall situation in which water level at dams are low
and pumps are dysfunctional thus unable to supply water to WTP. Sg Melaka basin will initiate
water transfer from rivers outside the basin and make use of the available alternative ponds.
Summary of the overall scenarios that have been implemented in Melaka for drought are as
follows:
1) Inter-transfer of reversed operation for both Durian Tunggal Dam and Jus Dam with
respect to critical threshold value of dam water level i.e. Durian Tunggal Dam reversed
supply to Jus Dam (83.3 MLD) and Jus Dam reversed supply to Durian Tunggal Dam
during drought (166.6 MLD).
2) At water level in between 85% to 95%, Durian Tunggal Dam gets water transfer supply
from Sg Muar via Grisek pump station at rate of 158 MLD (3 pumps turn on).
3) Kesang I and Kesang II pond transfer a total of 27 MLD into Sg Garing, downstream of
Durian Tunggal Dam, to eventually supplies water for the river and Bunded Storage.
4) Dysfunctional pumps of Bunded Storage I caused an immediate stop of supply to Sebukor
WTP (82 MLD), thus a new pipeline connection is developed to supply Sebukor WTP
directly from the river.
From the review of the NAWABS Sg Melaka study, it was found that findings from the NAWABS
Sg Melaka study is insufficient to conclude the yield sufficiency at individual study intakes as the
results from the water resources modelling conducted in the NAWABS Study was presented for
the whole of Sg Melaka system and no results of yield at each intake was presented.
2-112
In view of the complicated scheme involving pumping between the dams and bunded storage and
water transferring from outside of the basin; it is impossible to recreate the modelling of the whole
system within the time frame of this Study. Furthermore, the comprehensive NAWABS Study also
do not provide a conclusive remark for the yield at individual intake.
The assessment of the yield at the individual intake in the Sg Melaka system has hence been
assessed using available recorded streamflow data in the river basin which is able to reflect the
flow regime after the operation of the dam and pumping operation. This assessment is based on
the assumption that the operation of the pumping and water transferring has been reflected by the
recorded data at the two streamflow stations located at the downstream of the dams and could
serve as indication on the performance of the intake after the operation of the whole system. The
stations that have been used is as shown in Table 2-43.
Table 2-43: Streamflow stations used for yield assessment

Station Catchment Data Used No. of
No. Station Name Data Period
No. Area (km2) for Analysis Years
Sg Melaka at Pantai
1 2322413 385.4 1960 - 2020 2003 - 2020 18
Belimbing
Sg Durian Tunggal at
2 2322415 70.8 1963 - 2020 2003 - 2020 18
Batu 11 Air Resam
3 2224432 Sg Kesang at Chin-Chin 161.0 1960 - 2020 1960 - 2020 60
In view of the reverse pumping operation between the two dams, the data period used for Sg
Melaka at Pantai Belimbing station and Sg Durian Tunggal at Batu 11 Air Resam station started
from 2003 onwards where the pumping from Durian Tunggal to Jus Dam started. Due to the
relatively short period data of only 18 years, the yield assessment was not carried out by deriving
the 7Q50 but using the FDC method to illustrate the flow availability at the respective intake at
different percentage of time and the average numbers of deficit days. The detail methodology for
the assessment that carried out in this Study is presented in Table 2-44.
Table 2-44: Detailed yield estimation method adopted for study in Sg Melaka Basin
No WTP Source Scheme Yield Estimation Method

FDC constructed using the flow
Jus Dam;
1 Gadek Regulated transposed from Pantai Belimbing Station
Sg Batang Melaka
(regulated by Jus Dam).
Bertam Durian Tunggal Direct
2 Review of NAWABS Sg Melaka report
DAF I Dam Supply
(JPS, 2020) and simple water balance
Bertam Durian Tunggal Direct
3 computation
DAF II Dam Supply
i. Flow transposition using recorded flow
Regulated by
at Pantai Belimbing Station (regulated
Bunded Storage I; Durian
4 Sebukor by Jus Dam), Bt 11 Air Resam Station
Sg Melaka Tunggal and
(regulated by Durian Tunggal Dam)
Jus dam
and adjacent station of Sg Kesang at
2-113
No WTP Source Scheme Yield Estimation Method
Chin-Chin (for incremental natural
catchment).
ii. Construct FDC based on the
transposed daily flow series.
i. Flow transposition using recorded flow
at Pantai Belimbing Station (regulated
by Jus Dam), Bt 11 Air Resam Station
Regulated by
(regulated by Durian Tunggal Dam)
Durian
5 Bertam Sg Melaka and adjacent station of Sg Kesang at
Tunggal and
Chin-Chin (for incremental natural
Jus dam
catchment).
ii. Construct FDC based on the
transposed daily flow series.
Gadek WTP
Gadek WTP obtain its raw water sources from the intake at Sg Batang Melaka which is regulated
by the Jus Dam. The yield at the Gadek intake was assessed using the recorded flow at station Sg
Melaka at Pantai Belimbing after the operation of the Jus and Duritan Tunggal and the reverse
pumping between the dams taken place which is year 2003 onwards. Pantai Belimbing Station is
located at about 11 km downstream of Gadek intake.
FDC for the Gadek is as shown in Table 2-45. It is indicated by the FDC using recorded flow
from 2003 to 2020 that there is less than 1 percent of time that the river flow is less than 70
MLD, This is equivalent to about average of 1 day in a year. The FDC before the
implementation of the dam and the pumping scheme indicates more deficit days with about
10 percent of time (average of about 37 days in a year) that the river flow is less than 70
MLD.
Table 2-45: FDC values for Gadek intake
2003 to 2020 1963 to 2002

Percentile
m3/s MLD m3/s MLD
10 12.17 1052 10.59 915
20 8.14 703 6.83 590
30 6.22 537 5.05 436
40 5.10 441 3.90 337
50 4.31 372 3.02 261
60 3.64 315 2.36 204
70 2.92 252 1.83 158
80 2.39 206 1.32 114
85 2.09 181 1.05 90
90 1.82 157 0.75 65
95 1.51 131 0.41 35
96 1.44 125 0.36 31
97 1.38 119 0.32 28
98 1.31 113 0.23 20
2-114
2003 to 2020 1963 to 2002

Percentile
m3/s MLD m3/s MLD
99 1.13 97 0.15 13
100 0.70 61 0.02 1
Bertam and Sebukor WTP

Bertam and Sebukor WTP are located in close proximity and thus the water availability at the
intake is assessed together.
Based on the Sg Melaka NAWABS, the primary source of water for Sebukor WTP is from the
Bunded Storage I and II which getting water from both Durian Tunggal Dam and river. During the
drought, the dysfunctional pumps of Bunded Storage I will cause an immediate stop of supply to
Sebukor WTP and Sebukor WTP will take water directly from the river. Bertam WTP obtain water
from the river only.
As both WTPs will depend on the river flow during the drought, the flow availability was assessed
by comparing the flow arriving at the intake near Sebukor WTP with 271 MLD which is the total
water requirement of the two WTPs.
The flow arriving at the Bertam intake is the summation of the flow recorded at the Pantai
Belimbing Station (regulated by Jus Dam) located at about 6 km upstream of Bertam intake, Bt 11
Air Resam Station (regulated by Durian Tunggal Dam) located at about 5 km upstream of Bertam
intake and the remaining incremental area between the two stations to the Sebukor intake.
The flow contributed by the incremental catchment was derived using the flow transposed from Sg
Kesang at Chin-Chin station (natural catchment without dam regulation).
Table 2-46 shows the FDC values for various percentage of time at Sebukor intake. It is
indicated by the FDC that there is about 9% of the time where the river flow is not able to
fulfil the raw water requirement of the two intakes of 271 MLD. This is equivalent to about
33 days in a year.
It is noticeable that the numbers of deficit days have been reduced from the average of about 73
days to about 33 days after the implementation of the two dams and pumping scheme.
Table 2-46: FDC values for Sebukor intake
2003 to 2020 1963 to 2002

Percentile 3 3
m /s MLD m /s MLD
10 17.09 1477 17.77 1535
20 11.84 1023 11.89 1027
30 9.66 834 9.20 795
40 8.32 719 7.45 643
50 7.12 615 6.12 529
60 6.16 533 4.91 424
2-115
2003 to 2020 1963 to 2002
Percentile
m3/s MLD m3/s MLD
70 5.12 443 3.94 341
80 4.07 351 3.08 266
85 3.60 311 2.65 229
90 3.15 272 2.25 194
91 3.03 262 2.15 186
92 2.91 251 2.06 178
93 2.82 244 1.96 170
94 2.71 234 1.85 160
95 2.58 223 1.75 151
96 2.47 213 1.55 134
97 2.36 203 1.30 113
98 2.25 194 1.04 90
99 2.09 181 0.83 71
100 1.50 130 0.32 28
From the review of NAWABS Sg Melaka, a standard procedure in enhancing the performance of
dam has been proposed with the combinations of existing operations. Figure 2-36 and Figure
2-37 illustrated the standard operating procedure (SOP) for both normal and drought condition
proposed for Sg Melaka Basin.
Source: NAWABS Sg Melaka (JPS, 2019/2020)

Figure 2-36: SOP for Melaka during normal operation mode
2-116
Source: NAWABS Sg Melaka (JPS, 2019/2020)

Figure 2-37: SOP for Melaka during drought operation mode
2.5 Assessment of Intake and Dam Water Level
Assessment has been carried out on the received intake and dam water level records supplied by
the WTP operators. The performance of the WTPs could be indicated by the frequency and
duration of the dam or intake water level drop below the critical low level.
In the assessment of intake and dam water levels, triggering levels (i.e. alert, warning and critical
level) and daily water level at intake and dam were used to assess the frequency of the intake or
dam water level drops below the critical level. Daily intake or dam (for direct supply or regulating
schemes) water level data which received to date were used. Table 2-47 presents the findings
from the intake operational records assessment.
2-117
Table 2-47: Summary of findings from intake and dam water level assessment
Design Critical Data

Water Treatment Days below Critical Level
No. State Capacity River Basin Water Source Level Period
Plant (WTP) (Year)
(MLD) (m) Available
Timah Tasoh
1 Timah Tasoh 70 Sg Perlis 26 ODL 0 (2020) 2020
Dam
Muda Dam NA NA NA
Pedu Dam NA NA NA
Arau Fasa 1, 2 &
2 52 Sg Kedah Ahning Dam NA NA NA
3
MADA North
Perlis NA NA NA
Canal
Muda Dam NA NA NA
Pedu Dam NA NA NA
3 Arau Fasa 4 123 Sg Kedah
Ahning Dam NA NA NA
MADA North
NA NA NA
Canal
Muda Dam NA NA NA
Pedu Dam NA NA NA
4 Sg Baru 54.5 Sg Kedah
Ahning Dam NA NA NA
MADA Arau
0.5 NA NA
Canal
Muda Dam NA NA NA
Kedah Pedu Dam NA NA NA
5 Bukit Jenun Baru 55 Sg Kedah Ahning Dam NA NA NA
MADA South
4.6 NA NA
Canal
Muda Dam NA NA NA
6 Bukit Pinang 136.4 Sg Kedah Pedu Dam NA NA NA
Ahning Dam NA NA NA
2-118

Plant (WTP) (Year)
(MLD) (m) Available
MADA Central
5.3 NA NA
Canal
Muda Dam NA NA NA
Pedu Dam NA NA NA
7 Padang Sanai 50 Sg Kedah
Ahning Dam NA NA NA
Kedah Sg Padang Sanai 30.11 NA NA
Muda Dam NA NA NA
Pedu Dam NA NA NA
8 Pelubang 227.3 Sg Kedah
Ahning Dam NA NA NA
Sg Padang Terap 5.5 NA NA
Muda Dam NA NA NA
Pedu Dam NA NA NA
9 Pokok Sena 30 Sg Kedah
Ahning Dam NA NA NA
MADA Central
5.88 NA NA
Canal
Padang Saga Malut Dam 66.0 0 (2015-2020) 2015-2020
10 18.2 Sg Melaka
Fasa 3 Sg Melaka 2.33 NA NA
Kedah Lubuk Buntar
11 Baru (25) + Lama 59 Sg Kerian Sg Kerian 1.5 NA NA
(34)
12 Bukit Tupah 18 Sg Merbok Sg Bujang 0.5 NA NA
Baling Baru (10 +
13 15.5 Sg Muda Sg Baling 2 NA NA
5.5)
Beris Dam NA NA NA
14 Jeniang Baru 25 Sg Muda
Sg Muda 1.5 NA NA
15 Pinang Tunggal 45.4 Sg Muda Beris Dam NA NA NA
2-119
Plant (WTP) (Year)
(MLD) (m) Available
Sg Muda 2 NA NA
Beris Dam 1.7 NA NA
16 Kulim Hi-Tech 300 Sg Muda
Sg Muda 1.7 NA NA
Kedah
Beris Dam NA NA NA
17 Sg Petani 181.8 Sg Muda
Sg Muda 2 NA NA
18 Sg Ular 27.3 Sg Perai Sg Kulim 28 NA NA
19 Bukit Toh Allang 68 Sg Perai Sg Kulim NA NA NA
Muda Dam NA NA NA
Sg Muda / Sg Sg Muda NA NA NA
20 Sg Dua 1228
Perai Mengkuang Dam NA NAC 2017-2019
Sg Kulim NA NA NA
Teluk Bahang
NA NAC 2017-2019
21 Pulau Batu Ferringgi 120 Sg Tk. Bahang Dam
Pinang Sg Tk. Bahang NA NA NA
Teluk Bahang
NA NAC 2017-2019
Dam
22 Guillemard 80 Sg Tk. Bahang Sg Tk. Bahang NA NA NA
Sg Kecil NA NA NA
Air Itam Dam NA NAC 2017-2019
23 Air Itam 55 Sg Dondang
Sg Air Itam NA NA NA
24 Sg Kampar 36.37 Sg Perak Sg Kampar NA NA NA
Sg Batang
25 Sg Perak NA NA NA
Perak Bukit Temoh 136 Padang
26 Sg Perak Sg I NA NA NA
27 Hilir Perak 109 Sg Perak Sg Sungkai NA NA NA
2-120

Plant (WTP) (Year)
(MLD) (m) Available
28 Kampung Paloh 76.8 Sg Perak Sg Perak NA NA NA
Sultan Idris Shah
29 272.77 Sg Perak Sg Perak NA NA NA
II (MUC Parit)
30 Teluk Kepayang 145 Sg Perak Sg Perak NA NA NA
Sultan Azlan
31 Sg Kinta 227.3 Sg Perak RL 220 0 (2006-2020) 2006-2020
Shah Dam
Ulu Kinta (MUC Sultan Azlan
32 136.38 Sg Perak RL 220 0 (2006-2020) 2006-2020
Ulu Kinta) Shah Dam
Perak Bukit Merah Dam NA NA NA
Gunung
33 130 Sg Kurau
Semanggol Terusan Selinsing NA NA NA
Bukit Merah Dam NA NA NA
34 Jalan Baru 50 Sg Kerian Sg Semagagah NA NA NA

Tasek Besar
NA NA NA
Bagan Serai
35 Air Terjun 65.38 Sg Temerloh Sg Wang NA NA NA
36 Sg Geliting 50 Sg Bernam Sg Geliting NA NA NA
Bernam River
37 Headworks 65.5 Sg Bernam Sg Bernam NA NA NA
(Lama & Baru)
38 Kalumpang 6.7 Sg Bernam Sg Inki NA NA NA
39 Sg Sireh 27 Sg Tengi Sg Tengi NA NA NA
Selangor Selangor Dam 184.6 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
40 SSP1 950 Sg Selangor Tinggi Dam 46.35 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
Sg Selangor 3.3 1 (2018-2020) 2018-2020
Selangor Dam 184.6 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
41 SSP2 950 Sg Selangor
Tinggi Dam 46.35 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
2-121
Plant (WTP) (Year)
(MLD) (m) Available
Sg Selangor NA NA NA
Selangor Dam 184.6 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
42 SSP3 800 Sg Selangor Tinggi Dam 46.35 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
Sg Selangor 3 1 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
Selangor Dam 184.6 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
43 Rasa 250 Sg Selangor Tinggi Dam 46.35 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
Sg Selangor 2 0 (2020) 2020
Selangor Dam 184.6 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
44 Rantau Panjang 31.5 Sg Selangor Tinggi Dam 46.35 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
Sg Selangor NA NA NA
45 Batang Kali 20.3 Sg Selangor Sg Batang Kali NA NA NA
Kuala Kubu
46 Selangor 6.7 Sg Selangor Sg Kubu NA NA NA
Bharu
47 Sg Rangkap 9 Sg Selangor Sg Kanching NA NA NA
48 Gombak 22.5 Sg Klang Sg Gombak NA NA NA
49 Ampang Intake 18 Sg Klang Sg Ampang NA NA NA
50 Sungat Batu 113.7 Sg Klang Batu Dam 84.1 NA NA
51 Wangsa Maju 45 Sg Klang Klang Gates Dam 84 NA NA
52 Bukit Nanas 145 Sg Klang Klang Gates Dam 84 NA NA
53 North Hammock 22.5 Sg Buloh Subang Dam 34.75 NA NA
54 Kepong 4.5 Sg Buloh Sg Buloh NA NA NA
55 Sg Labu 105 Sg Langat Sg Labu NA NA NA
56 Salak Tinggi 10.8 Sg Langat Sg Labu NA NA NA
57 Sg Semenyih 545 Sg Langat Semenyih Dam 95.64 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
2-122

Plant (WTP) (Year)
(MLD) (m) Available
Sg Semenyih NA NA NA
Langat Dam 204.21 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
58 Sungat Langat 386 Sg Langat
Sg Langat NA NA NA
Selangor Langat Dam 204.21 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
59 Cheras Mile 11 27 Sg Langat
Sg Langat NA NA NA
Langat Dam 204.21 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
60 Bukit Tampoi 31.5 Sg Langat Semenyih Dam 95.64 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
Sg Langat NA NA NA
Langat Dam 204.21 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
61 Semenyih 2 100 Sg Langat Semenyih Dam 95.64 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
Sg Langat NA NA NA
Langat Dam 204.21 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
62 Selangor Labohan Dagang 200 Sg Langat Semenyih Dam 95.64 0 (2019-2020) 2019-2020
Sg Langat NA NA NA
Kelau Dam NA NA NA
63 Langat 2 1130 Sg Pahang Perting Dam NA NA NA
Sg Semantan NA NA NA
64 Sg Semantan 17.28 Sg Pahang Sg Semantan NA NA NA
65 Lubuk Kawah 120 Sg Pahang Sg Pahang NA NA NA
Kelau Dam NA NA NA
66 Ganchong 80 Sg Pahang Perting Dam NA NA NA
Pahang
Sg Pahang NA NA NA
Kelau Dam NA NA NA
Seberang
67 43.2 Sg Pahang Perting Dam NA NA NA
Temerloh
Sg Pahang NA NA NA
2-123
Plant (WTP) (Year)
(MLD) (m) Available
68 Jengka Utama 31.2 Sg Pahang Sg Pahang NA NA NA
69 Sg Bilut 19.32 Sg Pahang Sg Bilut NA NA NA
70 Kuala Medang 8.4 Sg Pahang Sg Jelai NA NA NA
71 Bukit Betong 12 Sg Pahang Sg Jelai NA NA NA
72 Sg Jelai 28.8 Sg Pahang Sg Jelai NA NA NA
73 Benta 12 Sg Pahang Sg Lipis NA NA NA
74 Jengka 3 – 7 11.28 Sg Pahang Sg Jempol NA NA NA
75 Triang 31.92 Sg Pahang Sg Triang NA NA NA
76 Lepar Hilir 14.4 Sg Pahang Sg Lepar NA NA NA
77 Jengka 8 22.9 Sg Pahang Sg Tekam NA NA NA
Perting Dam NA NA NA
78 Pahang Bentong Fasa 2 45.46 Sg Pahang
Sg Perting NA NA NA
79 Sg Keloi 30.24 Sg Pahang Sg Dong NA NA NA
80 Chini 21.6 Sg Pahang Sg Peal NA NA NA
Chereh Dam NA NA NA
81 Bukit Ubi 36 Sg Kuantan
Sg Kuantan NA NA NA
Chereh Dam NA NA NA
82 Panching 168 Sg Kuantan
Sg Kuantan NA NA NA
Chereh Dam NA NA NA
83 Semambu 288 Sg Kuantan
Sg Kuantan NA NA NA
84 Sepayang 36.36 Sg Pontian Pontian Dam NA NA NA
85 Keratong 36.32 Sg Rompin Sg Keratong NA NA NA
86 Terengganu Bukit Bauk 63.64 Sg Paka Sg Paka NA NA NA
2-124

Plant (WTP) (Year)
(MLD) (m) Available
87 Bukit Bunga 79.55 Sg Besut Sg Besut 11.0 NA NA
88 Bukit Sah 227.27 Sg Kemaman Sg Kemaman NA NA NA
89 Hulu Terengganu 55 Sg Terengganu Sg Terengganu NA NA NA
90 Kepong I 90 Sg Terengganu Sg Terengganu NA NA NA
91 Kepong II 180 Sg Terengganu Sg Terengganu NA NA NA
92 Losong 43.18 Sg Terengganu Sg Terengganu NA NA NA
93 Bukit Remah 40 Sg Kelantan Sg Kelantan NA NA NA
Merbau
94 50 Sg Kelantan Sg Kelantan NA NA NA
Chondong
95 Kelantan Kelar 64 Sg Kelantan Sg Kelantan NA NA NA
96 Sg Ketil 16 Sg Kelantan Sg Ketil NA NA NA
97 Pahi 21 Sg Kelantan Sg Pahi NA NA NA
98 Sg Linggi 136.36 Sg Linggi Sg Linggi 1 9 (2020) 2020
Ulu Sepri Dam NA NA NA
99 Sawah Raja 50 Sg Linggi
Sg Rembau 0.3 0 (2020) 2020
Triang Dam NA NA NA
100 Ngoi-Ngoi 136.36 Sg Linggi
Sg Petaseh NA NA NA
Sg Terip Dam NA NA NA
101 Negeri Sg Terip 304.55 Sg Linggi
Sg Batang Penar 0.6 71 (2020) 2020
Sembilan
Gemencheh Dam NA NA NA
102 Gemencheh 45.45 Sg Muar
Sg Asahan NA NA NA
Talang Dam NA NA NA
103 Gemas Baru 36.36 Sg Muar
Sg Muar 0.1 85 (2020) 2020
Talang Dam NA NA NA
104 Jempol 54.55 Sg Muar
Sg Muar 1.5 0 2020
2-125
Plant (WTP) (Year)
(MLD) (m) Available
Talang Dam NA NA NA
105 Kuala Jelai 113.65 Sg Muar
Sg Muar 1.0 0 2020
Juaseh Dam 77.17 0 2020
106 Air Panas (A + C) 25.54 Sg Muar
Sg Juaseh 41.5 0 2020
Talang Dam NA NA NA
107 Bukit Serampang 4.55 Sg Muar
Sg Muar -0.1 24 (2020) 2020
Talang Dam NA NA NA
108 Johor Grisek 62.2 Sg Muar
Sg Muar -0.93 0 2020
Talang Dam NA NA NA
109 Gombang 3.18 Sg Muar
Sg Muar 0.1 2 (2020) 2020
Talang Dam NA NA NA
110 Palong Timur 6.82 Sg Muar
Sg Muar 12.1 0 2020
Talang Dam NA NA NA
111 Pancor (1 – 4) 103.63 Sg Muar
Sg Muar -0.7 2 (2020) 2020
Juaseh Dam NA NA NA
112 Bukit Hampar 14.18 Sg Muar
Sg Segamat 4.5 137 (2020) 2020
Juaseh Dam NA NA NA
Sg Segamat
Kampung Tengah (Kampung 5.5 0 2020
113 Johor 44.36 Sg Muar
(1 + 2) Tengah 1)
Sg Segamat
(Kampung 4.5 137 (2020) 2020
Tengah 2)
114 Pemanis 2.27 Sg Muar Sg Segamat 15.5 0 2020
115 Jementah 2.27 Sg Muar Sg Jementah 36.2 1 (2020) 2020
Gunung Ledang
116 Gunung Ledang 13.64 Sg Muar 305.04 15 (2020) 2020
Dam
2-126

Plant (WTP) (Year)
(MLD) (m) Available
117 Bandar Tenggara 27.26 Sg Johor Sg Pengeli 23.4 98 (2020) 2020
118 Batu 2 3.18 Sg Johor Sg Pelepah NA NA NA
119 Sg Sayong 1 13.64 Sg Johor Sg Sayong 6.0 0 2020
120 Sg Sayong 2 31.82 Sg Johor Sg Sayong 6.0 0 2020
Linggiu Dam NA NA NA
121 Semangar 318.23 Sg Johor
Sg Johor 1.1 0 2020
122 Sg Johor 318.23 Sg Johor
Sg Johor -1.0 0 2020
123 Linggiu 1.82 Sg Johor
Sg Johor 5 157 (2020) 2020
Upper Layang
23.5 330 (2020) 2020
Dam
124 Sg Layang 358 Sg Johor
Lower Layang
3.78 352 (2020) 2020
Dam
125 Sg Lebam 54.55 Sg Johor Lebam Dam 12.32 302 (2020) 2020
126 Sembrong Barat 80 Sg Batu Pahat Sembrong Dam 7.38 0 (2020) 2020
Lagoon
NA NA NA
127 Parit Raja 4 63.64 Sg Batu Pahat Sembrong
Bekok Dam 12.02 0 (2020) 2020
Lagoon
NA NA NA
128 Sri Gading 72.1 Sg Batu Pahat Sembrong
Johor Bekok Dam 12.02 0 (2020) 2020
129 Endau 10 Sg Endau Labong Dam 5.65 0 (2020) 2020
130 Nitar 4.55 Sg Endau Sg Lenggor 5.15 0 (2020) 2020
131 Kahang Baru 3.18 Sg Endau Sg Kahang 10.15 0 (2020) 2020
132 Kahang Timor 5.46 Sg Endau Sg Kahang 31.15 0 (2020) 2020
133 Sembrong Timor 26.16 Sg Endau Sg Sembrong 24.04 0 (2020) 2020
2-127
Plant (WTP) (Year)
(MLD) (m) Available
134 Lok Heng 5.46 Sg Sedili Kecil Sg Sedili Kecil 1.3 44 (2020) 2020
135 Mersing Baru 10 Sg Mersing Sg Mersing 12.02 0 (2020) 2020
136 Skudai 68.19 Sg Skudai Sg Skudai 1.18 0 (2020) 2020
137 Sg Gembut 9.09 Sg Sedili Besar Sg Gembut 0 29 (2020) 2020
138 Tenggaroh 11.37 Sg Sedili Besar Sg Sedili Besar 8.48 0 (2020) 2020
Machap Dam 4.5 0 (2020) 2020
Simpang
139 64 Sg Benut
Renggam Sg Benut 14.84 3 (2020) 2020
Pontian Kecil
34.13 0 (2020) 2020
Dam
140 Gunung Pulai 81.83 Sg Pulai Pulai 1 Dam 44.67 114 (2020) 2020
Pulai 2 Dam 131.1 0 (2020) 2020
Sg Tenglu
141 Tenglu 15 Congok Dam 5.08 0 (2020) 2020
Besar
142 Asahan 4.5 Sg Kesang Asahan Dam 60% 66 (2018), 147 (2019), 45 (2020) 2018-2020
Melaka
143 Chin-Chin 20 Sg Kesang Sg Kesang NA NA NA
144 Merlimau 55 Sg Kesang Sg Kesang NA NA NA
Jus Dam NA NA NA
Durian Tunggal
145 Bertam 182 Sg Melaka 60% 20 (2018), 278 (2019), 122 (2020) 2018-2020
Dam
1 (2017), 15 (2018),
Sg Melaka 1.6 2017-2020
132 (2019), 71 (2021)
Melaka Durian Tunggal
146 Bertam DAF I 120 Sg Melaka 60% 20 (2018), 278 (2019), 122 (2020) 2018-2020
Dam
Durian Tunggal
147 Bertam DAF II 120 Sg Melaka 60% 20 (2018), 278 (2019), 122 (2020) 2018-2020
Dam
Jus Dam NA NA NA
148 Gadek 55 Sg Melaka Sg Batang
NA NA NA
Melaka
2-128

Plant (WTP) (Year)
(MLD) (m) Available
Jus Dam NA NA NA
Sg Melaka
149 Melaka Sebukor 78 Sg Melaka NA NA NA
bunded storage
Durian Tunggal
60% 20 (2018), 278 (2019), 122 (2020) 2018-2020
Dam
W. P. Kampung Lawa
150 76 Sg Padas Sg Padas 0 0.7 2018-2020
Labuan Gadong, Beaufort
Remarks:
NA indicates not available; NAC indicates not able to compute as critical level is not given
: indicates intakes that have average days below critical level
2-129
Based on the received intake or dam water level records, there are 17 intakes and 10 dams for the
WTPs in Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Johor and Melaka have recorded water level below the
critical low level in the past few years. The summary of the WTPs which experienced this issue
(two in Selangor; three in Negeri Sembilan; 15 in Johor; five in Melaka; are listed as below:
i. SSP1 xiv. Linggiu

ii. SSP3 xv. Sg Layang
iii. Sg Linggi xvi. Sg Lebam
iv. Sg Terip xvii. Lok Heng
v. Gemas Baru xviii. Sg Gembut
vi. Bukit Serampang xix. Simpang Renggam
vii. Gombang xx. Gunung Pulai
viii. Pancor (1-4) xxi. Asahan
ix. Bukit Hampar xxii. Bertam
x. Kampung Tengah (1+2) xxiii. Bertam DAF I
xi. Jementah xxiv. Bertam DAF II
xii. Gunung Ledang xxv. Sebukor
xiii. Bandar Tenggara
For the intake facing water level dropped below the critical level, it could be caused by two
reasons; insufficient yield at the intake or dam catchment, or improper design of the intake
structure which caused insufficient command level to enable the river water abstraction at the
intake even though the yield is sufficient to meet the abstraction requirement.
As for the dam water level that drops below the critical low level, it is anticipated that it could be
caused by the occurrence of exceptional drought at the dam catchment or insufficient yield for the
dam.
2.6 Assessment of Climate Change Impact on Yield
In this Study, the assessment of climate change impact on yield has been carried out by reviewing
the latest report published by NAHRIM, namely ‘Extension Study of the Impacts of Climate
Change on the Hydrologic Regime and Water Resources of Peninsular Malaysia 2014’ (termed as
NAHRIM CC 2014).
Impact assessment of climate change on river flows was carried out based on the findings in the
NAHRIM CC 2014 study on the 11 selected river basins of Peninsular Malaysia as listed below:
i. Sg Batu Pahat;
ii. Sg Johor;
2-130
iii. Sg Muda;
iv. Sg Klang;
v. Sg Kelantan;
vi. Sg Linggi;
vii. Sg Muar;
viii. Sg Pahang;
ix. Sg Perak;
x. Sg Selangor; and
xi. Sg Dungun.
In the NAHRIM CC 2014 study, the simulated 2010 –2100 hydroclimate data from 15 RegHCM-
PM downscaled projections were input to the WEHY watershed hydrology model that was
calibrated and validated over the 11 specified river basins, to route the water through the surfaces
and sub-surfaces, and the stream channel of these river basins. Analysis was carried out based
on the river flows at the outlet locations of the 11 selected river basins. In these simulations, it was
assumed that the fundamental physical characteristics of the selected river basins (topography,
landuse cover, vegetation, etc.) remain the same between the present and future periods, and that
only the changing climate is driving the change in the hydrologic regime of the river flows.
Maximum, average and minimum mean monthly flow at each of the 11 selected river basins,
based on the results from all model simulations during historical (based on downscaling of GCM
control runs) 1970-2000, and future (based on downscaled GCM projections) 2010-2100 periods,
are shown in Table 2-48. The difference between historical and future average and minimum
mean monthly flow at the selected river basins are shown in Table 2-49.
Table 2-48: Maximum, average and minimum mean monthly flow at the selected river
basins
Maximum Average Minimum

River Basin
Historical Future Historical Future Historical Future
Sg Batu
101.1 283.2 25.1 29.9 6.8 4.5
Pahat
Sg Johor 599.4 701.0 67.9 73.2 32.9 25.3
Sg Muda 509.6 2,702.1 94.7 105.5 14.5 7.5
Sg Klang 148.1 318.5 31.1 35.3 0.9 0.4
Sg Kelantan 4,087.5 10,114.7 530.5 606.9 92.7 52.3
Sg Linggi 125.1 386.2 23.5 29.7 2.6 1.0
Sg Muar 401.2 2,630.2 54.9 83.1 0.0 0.0
Sg Pahang 2,748.2 4,561.2 465.0 520.8 53.6 27.2
Sg Perak 2,658.3 9,936.9 707.8 803.6 51.5 49.9
Sg Selangor 573.5 1,193.5 62.3 80.3 12.2 11.7
Sg Dungun 414.9 671.3 54.5 59.7 3.1 1.2
Source: NAHRIM CC 2014 (NAHRIM, 2014)
2-131
Table 2-49: Difference between historical and future average and minimum mean monthly
flow at the selected river basins
Average Minimum
Difference Difference
River Basin
(Future – Difference (%) (Future – Difference (%)
Historical) Historical)
Sg Batu Pahat 4.8 19.1 -2.3 -33.8
Sg Johor 5.3 7.8 -7.6 -23.1
Sg Muda 10.8 11.4 -7 -48.3
Sg Klang 4.2 13.5 -0.5 -55.6
Sg Kelantan 76.4 14.4 -40.4 -43.6
Sg Linggi 6.2 26.4 -1.6 -61.5
Sg Muar 28.2 51.4 0 0.0
Sg Pahang 55.8 12.0 -26.4 -49.3
Sg Perak 95.8 13.5 -1.6 -3.1
Sg Selangor 18 28.9 -0.5 -4.1
Sg Dungun 5.2 9.5 -1.9 -61.3
From the findings of NAHRIM CC 2014 study, it can be seen that the maximum and average
mean monthly flow of all the selected river basins will experience an increasing trend while the
minimum monthly mean flow of all the selected river basins will experience a decreasing trend
resulting from the climate change impact. In this study, the climate change impact on yield is of
concern. In water supply, the yield is defined as the steady supply of water that could be
maintained through a drought of specific severity without interruption. Therefore, in other words,
low flow is of concern to assess the impact of climate change on yield. The minimum mean
monthly flow at the selected river basins will reduce in the range of 0 to 61.5%. The river basins
that will face huge reduction of the minimum flow are Sg Klang, Sg Linggi and Sg Dungun.
In view of the minimum monthly mean flow of all the selected river basins is expected to
experience a decreasing trend in the future, due to the impact of climate change, it could be
foreseen that the flow availability during dry period at the 11 selected river basins will reduce in the
future.
2-132
3.1 Findings and Discussion
The methodologies adopted in the yield assessment for the 150 intakes in this Study are
summarized in Figure 3-1. The yield based on 7Q50 flow was derived for 111 intakes in which the
yield for the intake was considered sufficient if its nett yield is higher than its raw water requirement.
19 intakes were assessed based on the flow availability according to the FDC at the intake against
the WTP raw water requirement. Average numbers of water deficits days were provided as an
indication of the performance of the intake since its operation. Another 20 intakes were assessed
based on the storage sustainability by adopting simple water balance analysis. Table 3-1 presents
the summary of the findings in terms of flow sufficiency to meet the raw water requirement together
with the remarks on the findings from the intake or dam water level assessment. The WTPs in river
basin schematic is shown in Appendix A.
Of the 150 intakes selected for assessment, 114 intakes are able to meet the raw water
requirement of the WTPs. 36 intakes are found with river yield / historical flow records / dam
storage capacity; to be insufficient to meet the raw water requirement. Summary of the yield,
flow and storage sufficiency for the 36 intakes together with the remarks on the findings from the
intake or dam water level assessment is presented in Table 3-2, Table 3-3 and
Table 3-4. Recommended mitigation measures or further detail assessments are provided in the
same tables. The distribution of WTP intakes with insufficient river yield / historical flow records /
dam storage capacity based on state is shown in Figure 3-2.
3-1
Figure 3-1: Yield assessment methodology and number or intakes sufficiency
based on each methodology
3-2
Figure 3-2: Summary of number of WTPs and flow sufficiency based on state
3-3
Table 3-1: Summary of yield for the WTPs in the Study
50-year ARI
Yield / * FDC
Sufficient to
Water Design Raw Water Lowest Value
meet WTP
No. State Treatment Plant Capacity River Basin Water Source Yield Estimation Method Requirement (MLD) / Remarks
raw water
(WTP) (MLD) (MLD) Storage
requirement
Sustainability
(Days)
Review of IRBM Sg Perlis
Timah Tasoh Dam = 87 MCM
Timah Tasoh (JPS, 2010), NWRS 2011
1 Perlis Timah Tasoh 70 73.5 884 days Yes (assumed 25 % storage for flood
Dam (JPS, 2011) + simple water
attenuation)
balance computation
Arau Fasa 1, 2 & Review of NAWABS Sg
2 Perlis 52 54.6 Yes
3 Sg Perlis Kedah report (JPS, 2020)
MADA North
Canal Review of NAWABS Sg
3 Perlis Arau Fasa 4 123 130 Yes
Kedah report (JPS, 2020)
MADA Arau Review of NAWABS Sg

4 Kedah Sg Baru 54.5 63.42 Yes
Bukit Jenun MADA South Review of NAWABS Sg Cumulative nett yield in the Sg Kedah
5 Kedah 55 83.74 Yes NAWABS Study was derived based
Baru Canal Kedah report (JPS, 2020)
on assumptions:
- Max capacity of Saiong Tunnel (42.5
MADA Central Review of NAWABS Sg 9,351
6 Kedah Bukit Pinang 136.4 164.96 Yes m³/s)
Canal Kedah report (JPS, 2020) - Total WTP demand of 986 MLD
- Environmental flow at Sg Kedah river
Sg Padang Review of NAWABS Sg mouth of 10.57 m³/s
7 Kedah Padang Sanai 50 Sg Kedah 52.5 Yes
Sanai Kedah report (JPS, 2020)
Sg Padang Review of NAWABS Sg

8 Kedah Pelubang 227.3 261.43 Yes
Terap Kedah report (JPS, 2020)
MADA Central Review of NAWABS Sg

9 Kedah Pokok Sena 30 34.65 Yes
17% of time (62 days) river flow less

than 29 MLD. Supplemented by ORS
(0.11 MCM) for another 4 days and
Padang Saga Sg Melaka / Malut Dam (7.2 MCM) for 58 days.
10 Kedah 18.2 Sg Melaka 2011) + FDC + simple water 28.83 83% reliability Yes
Fasa 3 Malut Dam Malut Dam is able to sustain for 154
balance computation
days by assuming continuous supplt
to Padang Saga 2 & 3, and Bukit
Kemboja WTPs
Lubuk Buntar
11 Kedah Baru (25) + 59 Sg Kerian Sg Kerian HP 12 68.57 291.96 Yes
Lama (34.1)
3-5
50-year ARI
Yield / * FDC
Sufficient to
meet WTP
raw water
requirement
Sustainability
(Days)
12 Kedah Bukit Tupah 18 Sg Merbok Sg Bujang Low flow frequency analysis 18.9 1.5 No HP 12 = 2.6, NWRS = 2.8
Baling Baru (10

13 Kedah 15.5 Sg Baling Low flow frequency analysis 23.22 1 No HP 12 = 1.1, NWRS = 2.4
+ 5.5)
Review of NAWABS Sg
14 Kedah Jeniang Baru 25 Muda report (JPS, 2019) + 31.86 *93 Yes -
FDC
Review of NAWABS Sg
15 Kedah Pinang Tunggal 45.4 Sg Muda Muda report (JPS, 2019) + 47.73 Yes
FDC
Sg Muda
Review of NAWABS Sg
16 Kedah Kulim Hi-Tech 300 Muda report (JPS, 2019) + 315 *969 Yes -
FDC
Review of NAWABS Sg
17 Kedah Sg Petani 181.8 Muda report (JPS, 2019) + 235.41 Yes
FDC
18 Kedah Sg Ular 27.3 Low flow frequency analysis 45.76 15 No NWRS = 16.7
Sg Perai Sg Kulim
Pulau
19 Bukit Toh Allang 68 Low flow frequency analysis 71.4 33.7 No NWRS = 38.6
Pinang
Review of NAWABS Sg
Pulau Sg Muda / Sg Sg Muda / Sg *407 (Lahar Sufficient with water supplemented
20 Sg Dua 1228 Muda report (JPS, 2019) + 1,289.40 Yes
Pinang Perai Kulim Tiang) from Mengkuang Dam (993.6 MLD)
FDC
Review of NWRS 2011 (JPS, Tk Bahang Dam = 18 MCM. The dam
Pulau
21 Batu Ferringgi 120 2011) + simple water balance 126 No storage is found to be able to sustain
Pinang
Tk Bahang computation less than 90 days.
Sg Tk. Bahang 86 days
Dam Review of NWRS 2011 (JPS,
Pulau
22 Guillemard 80 2011) + simple water balance 84 No The dry period in the northern region
Pinang
computation has the possibility to span over 3
Review of NWRS 2011 (JPS, months; starts from December to
Pulau
23 Air Itam 55 Sg Dondang Sg Air Itam 2011) + simple water balance 57.75 45 days No January until March of the subsequent
Pinang
computation year.
24 Perak Sg Kampar 36.37 Sg Kampar HP 12 38.19 81.5 Yes -
Bukit Temoh (Sg Sg Batang
25 Perak Low flow frequency analysis Yes -
Batang Padang) Padang
136 142.8 158
Bukit Temoh (Sg
26 Perak Sg Woh Low flow frequency analysis Yes -
Woh)
Sg Perak
27 Perak Hilir Perak 109 Sg Sungkai Low flow frequency analysis 114.45 298 Yes -
28 Perak Kampung Paloh 76.8 Low flow frequency analysis 80.64 8,180 Yes -
Sg Perak
Sultan Idris
29 Perak 272.77 Low flow frequency analysis 286.41 8,466 Yes -
Shah II (MUC
3-6
50-year ARI
Yield / * FDC
Sufficient to
meet WTP
raw water
requirement
Sustainability
(Days)
Parit)
30 Perak Teluk Kepayang 145 Low flow frequency analysis 152.25 8,063 Yes -
Review of NWRS 2011 (JPS, Sultan Azlan Shah Dam = 28.6 MCM.
31 Perak Sg Kinta 227.3 2011) + simple water balance 238.67 No The dam storage is found to be able
computation to sustain less than 90 days.
Sultan Azlan
75 days The dry period in the northern region
Shah Dam Review of NWRS 2011 (JPS,
Ulu Kinta (MUC has the possibility to span over 3
32 Perak 136.38 2011) + simple water balance 143.2 No months; starts from December to
Ulu Kinta)
computation January until March of the subsequent
year.
Review of NWRS 2011 (JPS,
Gunung Terusan
33 Perak 130 Sg Kurau 2011) + simple water balance 136.5 Yes
Semanggol Selinsing
computation
Tasek Besar 492 days Bukit Merah Dam = 93 MCM
Bagan Serai /
34 Perak Jalan Baru 50 Sg Kerian 2011) + simple water balance 52.5 Yes
Sg
computation
Semagagah
35 Perak Air Terjun 65.38 Sg Temerloh Sg Wang Low flow frequency analysis 68.65 4.9 No HP = 2.7, NWRS = 12.8
Review of NAWABS Sg Geliting WTP supplemented by Sg

36 Perak Sg Geliting 50 Sg Geliting 52.5 21.9 No
Bernam report (JPS, 2020) Slim intake with 7Q50 = 147 MLD
Review of NAWABS Sg
37 Selangor Kalumpang 6.7 Sg Bernam Sg Inki 7.04 19.7 Yes -
Bernam report (JPS, 2020)
Bernam River
Review of NAWABS Sg
38 Selangor Headworks 65.5 Sg Bernam 69.9 Yes -
(Lama & Baru) 716.2
Review of NAWABS Sg
39 Selangor Sg Sireh 27 Sg Tengi Sg Tengi 28.35 Yes -
Review of IRBM Sg Selangor 4% of time (15 days) flow < 3035 MLD
40 Selangor SSP1 950 1,129 No Fully implemented the proposed
report (LUAS, 2014) + FDC
HORAS scheme (1,367 MLD) (IRBM
Review of IRBM Sg Selangor Sg Selangor) will increase the
43 Selangor SSP2 950 1,023 No
report (LUAS, 2014) + FDC *592 reliability to 99%
Sg Selangor Sg Selangor
Review of IRBM Sg Selangor Days below Critical Level:
41 Selangor SSP3 800 883.16 No  SSP1 = 1 (2019)
 SSP 3 = 1 (2019), 1 (2020)
Review of IRBM Sg Selangor
42 Selangor Rasa 250 270 *232 No 1% of time (4 days) flow < 270 MLD
3-7
50-year ARI
Yield / * FDC
Sufficient to
meet WTP
raw water
requirement
Sustainability
(Days)
Review of IRBM Sg Selangor

44 Selangor Rantau Panjang 31.5 33.08 *532 Yes -
Sg Batang
45 Selangor Batang Kali 20.3 Low flow frequency analysis 21.32 48.3 Yes HP 12 = 12.6
Kali
Kuala Kubu
46 Selangor 6.7 Sg Kubu Low flow frequency analysis 7.04 0.48 No HP 12 = 0.16
Bharu
47 Selangor Sg Rangkap 9 Sg Kanching Low flow frequency analysis 9.45 2.76 No HP 12 = 1.4
48 Selangor Gombak 22.5 Sg Gombak Low flow frequency analysis 32.17 10.1 No NWRS = 24.8
49 Selangor Ampang Intake 18 Sg Ampang Low flow frequency analysis 18.9 4.8 No HP 12 = 2.1
Could supply up to 130 MLD with the

Review of Batu Dam condition the recharge is to about 30%
50 Selangor Sg Batu 113.7 Batu Dam Operating Rule Curve study 137.5 MLD 114 Yes of the full active storage
report (Air Selangor, 2019) Abstraction rate of 140 MLD is not
Sg Klang recommended.
Priority release given to Bukit Nanas

Review of IRBM Sg Klang WTP during critical period. Wangsa
51 Selangor Wangsa Maju 45 47.25 No
Klang Gates report (JPS, 2015) Maju second source from Gombak
125 also insuffiicient
Dam
Review of IRBM Sg Klang

52 Selangor Bukit Nanas 145 152.25 No -
report (JPS, 2015)
Tasik Subang Review of IRBM Sg Klang
53 Selangor North Hammock 22.5 23.63 7 No -
Dam report (JPS, 2015)
Sg Buloh
54 Selangor Kepong 4.5 Sg Buloh Low flow frequency analysis 4.73 0.39 No HP 12 = 0.15, NWRS = 1.0
IRBM Sg Langat (LUAS, 2015) -

regulated intake for Sg Semenyih
Review of Semenyih Dam
WTP is not sustainable to cater for
55 Selangor Sg Semenyih 545 Sg Semenyih Storage Preduction Model 682 682 - 700 Yes
demand of 700 MLD, even with
Sg Langat report (2015)
contribution from the mining ponds
scheme
56 Selangor Salak Tinggi 10.8 Sg Labu Low flow frequency analysis 11.34 18.2 Yes -
3-8
50-year ARI
Yield / * FDC
Sufficient to
meet WTP
raw water
requirement
Sustainability
(Days)
Review of IRBM Sg Langat 9% of time (33 days) flow < 110 MLD.
57 Selangor Sg Labu 105 report (LUAS, 2015) + FDC + 110.25 *42 Yes Supplemented by ORS (9.3 MCM)
ORS sustainability which could sustain for 84 days.
Nett regulated yield (380 MLD) is

Review of IRBM Sg Langat
58 Selangor Sg Langat 386 405.3 467 Yes insufficient if have to comply to the
report (LUAS, 2015)
compensation flow release (87 MLD).

report (LUAS, 2015) &
59 Selangor Cheras Mile 11 27 28.35 50.1 Yes -
NWRS (JPS, 2011) & low
flow frequency analysis
Sg Langat report (LUAS, 2015) &
60 Selangor Bukit Tampoi 31.5 33.08 254 Yes -
NWRS (JPS, 2011) & low
flow frequency analysis
ORS of 6 MCM is able to sustain for
61 Selangor Semenyih 2 100 FDC + ORS sustainability 105 *160 Yes
about 2 months (57 days)
2% of time (7 days) deficit.

Labohan
62 Selangor 200 FDC + ORS sustainability 210 *31 Yes Supplemented by ORS (15 MCM)
Dagang
which could sustain for 71 days.

63 Selangor Langat 2 1130 2011) + simple water balance 1186.5 248 days Yes -
Sg Semantan computation
64 Pahang Sg Semantan 17.28 HP 12 18.14 77.5 Yes -
65 Pahang Lubuk Kawah 120 HP 12 126 2,754 Yes -
66 Pahang Ganchong 80 HP 12 84 3,660 Yes -

Sg Pahang
Seberang
67 Pahang 43.2 HP 12 45.36 2,848 Yes -
Temerloh
68 Pahang Jengka Utama 31.2 Sg Pahang HP 12 32.76 2,777 Yes -
69 Pahang Sg Bilut 19.32 Sg Bilut HP 12 20.29 21.5 Yes -
70 Pahang Kuala Medang 8.4 HP 12 8.82 489.9 Yes -
71 Pahang Bukit Betong 12 Sg Jelai HP 12 12.6 525.4 Yes -
72 Pahang Sg Jelai 28.8 HP 12 30.24 804.9 Yes -
73 Pahang Benta 12 Sg Lipis HP 12 12.6 263.3 Yes -
74 Pahang Jengka 3 - 7 11.28 Sg Jempol HP 12 11.84 38.1 Yes -
75 Pahang Triang 31.92 Sg Triang HP 12 33.52 149 Yes -
76 Pahang Lepar Hilir 14.4 Sg Lepar HP 12 15.12 220 Yes -
3-9
50-year ARI
Yield / * FDC
Sufficient to
meet WTP
raw water
requirement
Sustainability
(Days)
77 Pahang Jengka 8 22.9 Sg Tekam HP 12 24.05 127.5 Yes -

78 Pahang Bentong Fasa 2 45.46 Sg Perting 2011) + simple water balance 47.73 2,619 days Yes -
computation
79 Pahang Sg Keloi 30.24 Sg Dong Low flow frequency analysis 31.75 14.8 No -
80 Pahang Chini 21.6 Sg Peal HP 12 22.68 29.6 Yes -

Review of IRBM Sg Kuantan
81 Pahang Panching 168 report (JPS, 2018) + low flow 176.4 # 444 Yes
frequency analysis # indicate natural 7Q50 without dam
Review of IRBM Sg Kuantan release
82 Pahang Semambu 288 Sg Kuantan Sg Kuantan report (JPS, 2018) + low flow 302.4 Yes Water release from Chereh Dam
frequency analysis during low flow will further increase
# 466 the yield (Dam yield 1,859 MLD)
Review of IRBM Sg Kuantan
83 Pahang Bukit Ubi 36 report (JPS, 2018) + low flow 37.8 Yes
frequency analysis
84 Pahang Sepayang 36.36 Sg Pontian Pontian Dam 38.18 259 Yes -
2011)
85 Pahang Keratong 36.32 Sg Rompin Sg Keratong HP 12 38.14 118.8 Yes -
86 Terengganu Bukit Bauk 63.64 Sg Paka Sg Paka HP 12 70 173 Yes -
87 Terengganu Bukit Bunga 79.55 Sg Besut Sg Besut HP 12 87.51 131 Yes -
88 Terengganu Bukit Sah 227.27 Sg Kemaman Sg Kemaman HP 12 250 338 Yes -
Hulu
89 Terengganu 55 Low flow frequency analysis 60.5 4,087 Yes -
Terengganu
90 Terengganu Kepong I 90 Low flow frequency analysis 99 3,724 Yes -

Sg Sg
Terengganu Terengganu
91 Terengganu Kepong II 180 Low flow frequency analysis 198 3,625 Yes -
92 Terengganu Losong 43.18 Low flow frequency analysis 47.5 3,427 Yes -
93 Kelantan Bukit Remah 40 HP 12 42 2,137 Yes -

Merbau
94 Kelantan 50 Sg Kelantan HP 12 52.5 2,166 Yes -
Chondong
95 Kelantan Kelar 64 Sg Kelantan HP 12 67.2 2,126 Yes -
96 Kelantan Sg Ketil 16 Sg Ketil HP 12 16.8 26.3 Yes -
97 Kelantan Pahi 21 Sg Pahi HP 12 26 40.4 Yes -
Negeri
98 Sg Linggi 136.36 Sg Linggi Sg Linggi Low flow frequency analysis 143.18 41.8 No Days below Critical Level = 9 (2020)
Sembilan
3-10
50-year ARI
Yield / * FDC
Sufficient to
meet WTP
raw water
requirement
Sustainability
(Days)
7Q50 from HP12: 14 MLD; LFFA is 28

MLD
Review of NWRS (JPS, Even though 7Q50 is insufficient, it
Negeri
99 Sawah Raja 50 Sg Rembau 2011) & simple water 52.5 10 days Yes happens 2% of the time from FDC,
Sembilan
balance computation where the dam can supplement for
about 10 days. Sg Rembau Dam =
0.525 MCM

Negeri Triang Dam /
100 Ngoi-Ngoi 136.36 2011) & simple water 145.55 343 days Yes Triang Dam = 50 MCM
Sembilan Petaseh
balance computation
Sg Terip Dam Review of NWRS (JPS, Sg Terip Dam = 48 MCM
Negeri
101 Sg Terip 304.55 / Sg Batang 2011) & simple water 319.78 150 days Yes
Sembilan
Penar balance computation Days below Critical Level = 71 (2020)
There are two water sources for

Gemencheh WTP However, it has
Gemencheh Review of NWRS (JPS,
Negeri been 12 years that Sg Asahan could
102 Gemencheh 45.45 Dam / Sg 2011) & simple water 47.72 645 days Yes
Sembilan not be operated due to its lower WL.
Asahan balance computation
Gemencheh Dam = 30.8 MCM
Review of Kajian Sumber Air

Negeri Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015)
103 Jempol 54.55 74.93 Yes
Sembilan + low flow frequency analysis # indicate natural 7Q50 arriving at
+ FDC Palong Timur (CA = 2,178 km²)
Review of Kajian Sumber Air Total raw water requirement up to
Negeri Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) Palong Timur = 281.4 MLD
104 Kuala Jelai 113.65 Sg Muar 221.2 Yes
Sembilan + low flow frequency analysis 6% of the time the flow (22 days) <
+ FDC 282 MLD
Review of Kajian Sumber Air A release of 123.2 MLD from Talang
Negeri Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) Dam is required during droughts
105 Gemas Baru 36.36 Sg Muar 274.2 # 158.2 Yes
Sembilan + low flow frequency analysis Total release requirement from Talang
+ FDC dam including to Kelinchi Dam =
399.2 MLD
Talang dam able to supply for 100
Review of Kajian Sumber Air days
Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015)
106 Johor Palong Timur 6.82 281.4 Yes Days below Critical Level:
+ low flow frequency analysis
+ FDC  Gemas Baru = 85 (2020)
3-11
50-year ARI
Yield / * FDC
Sufficient to
meet WTP
raw water
requirement
Sustainability
(Days)

Air Panas (A +
107 Johor 25.54 Sg Juaseh Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) 26.82 39.6 Yes -
C)
Review of Kajian Sumber Air The raw water requirement at Grisek
Bukit includes 160 MLD transfer to Durian
108 Johor 4.55 Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) 7.91 Yes
Serampang Tunggal Dam. The 7Q50 was derived
at Bukit Serampang intake, taking into
Review of Kajian Sumber Air account all the abstractions upstream
109 Johor Grisek 62.2 Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) 236.56 Yes of the Buloh Kasap and Segamat
+ low flow frequency analysis stations and reflects the historical
Sg Muar 314.3 Talang Dam Release
110 Johor Gombang 3.18 Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) 11.3 Yes
+ low flow frequency analysis Days below Critical Level:
 Gombang = 2 (2020)
Review of Kajian Sumber Air  Bukit Serampang = 24 (2020)
111 Johor Pancor (1 - 4) 103.63 Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) 345.38 No
 Panchor (1-4) = 2 (2020)
Review of Kajian Sumber Air 7Q50 was derived at the Segamat
112 Johor Bukit Hampar 14.18 Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) 14.89 Yes station where all the upstream
+ low flow frequency analysis abstractions (including Kampung
Tengah 1 &2 and Bukit Hampar) are
reflected in the recorded flow
101.3
Sg Segamat Review of Kajian Sumber Air Days below Critical Level:
Kampung
113 Johor 44.36 Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) 46.58 Yes  Bukit Hampar = 137 (2020)
Tengah (1 + 2)
+ low flow frequency analysis  Kampung Tengah (1 + 2) =
137 (2020)
114 Johor Pemanis 2.27 HP 12 2.38 18.9 Yes -
115 Johor Jementah 2.27 Sg Jementah Low flow frequency analysis 3.13 3.4 Yes Days below Critical Level = 1 (2020)
Nett yield (13.64 MLD) is insufficient if
have to comply to the compensation
Gunung Review of Kajian Sumber Air flow release (8.36 MLD)
116 Johor Gunung Ledang 13.64 14.32 22 Yes
Ledang Dam Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015)
Days below Critical Level = 15 (2020)

Bandar
117 Johor 27.26 Sg Pengeli Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) 28.62 31.9 Yes Days below Critical Level = 98 (2020)
Tenggara
Sg Johor
118 Johor Batu 2 3.18 Sg Pelepah Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) 3.86 2.34 No -
3-12
50-year ARI
Yield / * FDC
Sufficient to
meet WTP
raw water
requirement
Sustainability
(Days)

119 Johor Sg Sayong 1 13.64 Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) 14.32 Yes -
& NWRS (JPS, 2011)
Sg Sayong 121
120 Johor Sg Sayong 2 31.82 Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) 33.41 Yes -
& NWRS (JPS, 2011)
Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015),
121 Johor Semangar 318.23 draft concept report of Projek 334.14 418* Yes -
Pembangunan ORS Sg
Johor (BBA, 2020) + FDC
3% of the time (equivalent to an
average of 11 days in a year), the
122 Johor Sg Johor 318.23 Sg Johor draft concept report of Projek 334.14 55* No
river flow arriving at Sg Johor WTP
Pembangunan ORS Sg
intake is less than 334.14 MLD
Days below Critical Level = 157
123 Johor Linggiu 1.82 draft concept report of Projek 1.91 409* Yes
(2020)
Pembangunan ORS Sg
106.44 MLD (total nett direct supply
yield) + 13 MLD (compensation
release from Upper & Lower Layang
Dams) + 175 MLD (water pumped
from Sg Johor WTP) = 294.44 MLD
Upper &
124 Johor Sg Layang 358 Lower Layang 375.9 294.44 No
Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) Days below Critical Level:
Dam
 Upper Layang Dam = 330
(2020)
 Lower Layang Dam = 352
(2020)
Nett yield of Lebam Dam = 43 MLD

Total available yield = 73 MLD (with
30 MLD transfer from Seluyut Dam)
125 Johor Sg Lebam 54.55 Lebam Dam 57.28 73 Yes
Days below Critical Level = 302
(2020)
85.1 MLD is the Nett yield after

Sembrong Review of Kajian Sumber Air
126 Johor Sembrong Barat 80 Sg Batu Pahat 84 85.1 Yes comply to compensation release of
Dam Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015)
26.68 MLD
3-13
50-year ARI
Yield / * FDC
Sufficient to
meet WTP
raw water
requirement
Sustainability
(Days)
Review of Kajian Sumber Air Nett yield (192.86 MLD) is insufficient

127 Johor Parit Raja 4 63.64 66.82 Yes
Lagoon Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) to meet the existing capacity of
Sembrong / 242.1 pumping plant (240 MLD) if have to
Bekok Dam Review of Kajian Sumber Air comply to the compensation flow
128 Johor Sri Gading 72.1 75.71 Yes release (49.25 MLD).

129 Johor Endau 10 Labong Dam 10.5 45 Yes -
130 Johor Nitar 4.55 Sg Lenggor HP 12 4.78 93.4 Yes -
131 Johor Kahang Baru 3.18 HP 12 3.34 34.2 Yes -

Sg Endau Sg Kahang Review of NWRS 2011 (JPS,
Kahang Dam = 21 MCM - to Kahang
132 Johor Kahang Timor 5.46 2011) and simple water 5.73 575 days Yes
Timor, Sembrong Timor
balance computation
Sufficient with backup supply from
133 Johor Sembrong Timor 26.16 Sg Sembrong HP 12 27.47 27.3 Yes Kahang Dam.
134 Johor Lok Heng 5.46 Sg Sedili Kecil Sg Sedili Kecil HP 12 8.45 14.3 Yes Days below Critical Level = 44 (2020)
135 Johor Mersing Baru 10 Sg Mersing Sg Mersing HP 12 10.5 13.4 Yes -
136 Johor Skudai 68.19 Sg Skudai Sg Skudai Low flow frequency analysis 77.38 64.5 No HP 12 = 31.5, NWRS = 59.4
137 Johor Sg Gembut 9.09 Sg Gembut HP 12 11.39 14.8 Yes Days below Critical Level = 29 (2020)
Sg Sedili
Besar Sg Sedili
138 Johor Tenggaroh 11.37 HP 12 11.94 107 Yes -
Besar
Machap Dam = 12.3 MCM
Simpang
139 Johor 64 Sg Benut Sg Benut 2011) and simple water 82.9 148 days Yes
Renggam Days below Critical Level = 3 (2020)
balance computation
Pontian Kecil /
Pulai 1 / Pulai Review of Kajian Sumber Air Days below Critical Level = 114
140 Johor Gunung Pulai 81.83 Sg Pulai 89.08 51 No
2 / Pulai 3 Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) (2020)
Dam
Nett yield (14.1 MLD) is insufficient if
Sg Tenglu Review of Kajian Sumber Air have to comply to the compensation
141 Johor Tenglu 15 Congok Dam 15.75 22.47 Yes
Besar Negeri Johor (BAKAJ, 2015) flow release (8.37 MLD)
Asahan Dam = 0.7 MCM

142 Melaka Asahan 4.5 Sg Kesang Asahan Dam 2011) and simple water 5 140 days Yes Days below Critical Level = 66 (2018),
balance computation 147 (2019), 45 (2020)
3-14
50-year ARI
Yield / * FDC
Sufficient to
meet WTP
raw water
requirement
Sustainability
(Days)
143 Melaka Chin-Chin 20 HP 12 21 25.2 Yes -

Sg Kesang
144 Melaka Merlimau 55 Low flow frequency analysis 57.75 24.9 No -
Durian Tunggal Dam = 32.6 MCM
145 Melaka Bertam DAF I 120 126 129 days No Based on the storage sustainability,
the dam can last up to 129 days which
is sufficient to cater for the 3 months
drought.
However, historial records shows the
Review of NAWABS Sg
Durian Melaka report (JPS, 2020)
storage at only 50% for 20 days in
Tunggal Dam and simple water balance
2018, 278 days in 2019 and 122 days
146 Melaka Bertam DAF II 120 computation 126 129 days No in 2020
Days below Critical Level at Durian

Tunggal Dam = 20 (2018), 278
(2019), 122 (2020)
Sg Melaka Review of NAWABS Sg

Sg Batang
147 Melaka Gadek 55 Melaka report (JPS, 2020) + 70 *61 Yes <1% of time (1 day) flow < 70 MLD.
Melaka
FDC
Review of NAWABS Sg 10% of time (37 days) flow < 282 MLD
148 Melaka Bertam 182 Sg Melaka Melaka report (JPS, 2020) + 200 No
FDC Days below Critical Level:
Bertam
 Durian Tunggal Dam = 20
(2018), 278 (2019), 122 (2020)
*130  Sg Melaka = 1 (2017), 15
Sg Melaka Review of NAWABS Sg (2018), 132 (2019), 71 (2021)
149 Melaka Sebukor 68 bunded Melaka report (JPS, 2020) + 71.4 No
storage FDC Sebukur
 Durian Tunggal Dam = 20
(2018), 278 (2019), 122 (2020)
Kampung Lawa
W. P.
150 Gadong, 76 Sg Padas Sg Padas Low flow frequency analysis 80.83 542 Yes -
Labuan
Beaufort
3-15
Table 3-2: Summary of WTPs with insufficient yield assessed using low flow frequency analysis

Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD) (MLD)
1 Bukit Tupah Sg Bujang 18.9 1.5 The derived 7Q50 in this Study is found to be insufficient.
2 Kedah Baling Baru (10+5.5) Sg Baling 23.22 1.0
3 Sg Ular 45.76 15 Further assessment could be carried out by the WTP
Sg Kulim operators on the historical intake operational records
Pulau
4 Bukit Toh Allang 71.4 33.7
Pinang
5 Air Terjun Sg Wang 68.65 4.9
Perak
The 7Q50 of Sg Geliting was adopted from the NAWABS
Sg Bernam (JPS, 2020) study.
6 Sg Geliting Sg Geliting 52.5 21.9
Sg Geliting WTP could be supplemented by Sg Slim intake
with larger 7Q50 yield of 147 MLD.
7 Kuala Kubu Bharu Sg Kubu 7.04 0.48 The derived 7Q50 in this Study is found to be insufficient.
8 Sg Rangkap Sg Kanching 9.45 2.76 concurrent assessment on the performance of the intake.
9 Gombak Sg Gombak 32.17 10.1
Selangor operators on the historical intake operational records
10 Ampang Intake Sg Ampang 18.9 4.8
11 Kepong Sg Buluh 4.73 0.39 However, there is no water level records made available for
3-17
Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD) (MLD)
operators on the historical intake operational records.
12 Wangsa Maju Klang Gates 47.25 The 7Q50 was adopted from the IRBM Sg Klang (LUAS,
125
13 Bukit Nanas Dam 152.25 2016) study.
Detailed dam yield assessment is recommended to be

Tasik carried out to confirm the dam catchment yield and
14 North Hammock 23.63 7
Subang Dam possibility to increase the dam storage or the need to
transfer water from other sources.

15 Pahang Sg Keloi Sg Dong 31.75 14.8
Days where river level at intake dropped to Critical Level = 9

days (2020).
It is recommended that off-river storage (ORS) could be

Negeri
16 Sg Linggi Sg Linggi 143.18 41.8 provided as mitigation measures during the low flow
Sembilan
period.
An ORS along Sg Linggi will be constructed to increase the

raw water resources in Negeri Sembilan and meet future
water demand of the proposed Malaysia Vision Valley
(MVV) development until 2030. The project is now in
3-18

Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD) (MLD)
detailed design stage by BBA
Currently, Sg Linggi WTP suppies 22 MLD to Seremban

district and 108 MLD to Port Dickson district. A new WTP
located downstream of Sg Linggi WTP proposed together
with the ORS will have a minimum design capacity of 150
MLD. The proposed ORS and WTP can augment the water
supply in the districts. This can lessen the water stress
faced by Sg Linggi WTP.

17 Skudai Sg Skudai 77.38 64.5

2015).
Johor
Days below where river level at intake dropped to Critical
18 Pancor (1 - 4) Sg Muar 345.38 314.3 Level = 2 days (2020)
It is recommended that ORS could be provided as mitigation

measures during the low flow period or increase the release
from Talang Dam and Gemencheh Dam during the low flow

19 Batu 2 Sg Pelepah 3.86 2.34 Kajian Sumber Air Negeri Johor (2010-2060) (BAKAJ,
2015).
3-19
Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD) (MLD)
The derived 7Q50 is found to be insufficient. However, there

is no water level records made available for concurrent
assessment on the performance of the intake. Further
assessment could be carried out by the WTP operators on
the historical intake operational records.
The 7Q50 was derived after reviewing the Kajian Sumber

Air Negeri Johor (2010-2060) (BAKAJ, 2015).
Yield of Sg Layang WTP = 106.44 MLD (total nett direct

supply yield) + 13 MLD (compensation release from Upper
& Lower Layang Dams) + 175 MLD (water pumped from Sg
Upper & Johor WTP) = 294.44 MLD. The yield is still insufficient.
Sg Layang 375.9 294.44
20 Lower
Layang Dam Days where dam level dropped to Critical Level:
• Upper Layang Dam = 330 (2020)
• Lower Layang Dam = 352 (2020)
Sg Layang WTP Could be supplemented by water pumped

from Sg Seluyut – range from 40 – 180 MLD

Pontian Kecil 2015).
/ Pulai 1 /
21 Gunung Pulai 89.08 51
Pulai 2 / Days where dam level dropped to Critical Level = 114
Pulai 3 Dam (2020).
Source work to transfer water from downstream of the river
3-20

Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD) (MLD)
and store in the existing dams could be considered.

Source work to provide storage at the downstream of the
22 Melaka Merlimau Sg Kesang 57.75 24.9
basin could be implemented.
Table 3-3: Summary of WTPs with insufficient flow assessed using flow duration curve
Raw Water
Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD)
The historical flow records that reflect the
1 SSP1 1,129 Sg Selangor dam release showed that
there were 4% of time (15 days), the
2 SSP2 1,023 arriving flow at SSP group of intakes was
less than 3035 MLD.
This could be due to the operation of the
dam which causing delay in the dam
release to arrive at the intake during low
Selangor Sg Selangor 592
flow period.
3 SSP3 883.16 Further assessment could be carried out

on the dam storage at the corresponding
period to assess whether the
insufficiency is due to the low dam
storage or dam operation.
3-21
Raw Water
Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD)
Further assessment on the dam
operation data could be carried to
identify the limitation in dam operation for
further improvement.
Days where river level at intake dropped

to Critical Level:
• SSP1 = 1 (2019)
• SSP 3 = 1 (2019), 1 (2020)
1% of time (4 days) flow < 270 MLD.

Same recommendation as the SSP
4 Rasa Sg Selangor 270 232
intakes
3% of the time (equivalent to an average

of 11 days in a year), the river flow
arriving at Sg Johor WTP intake is less
than 334.14 MLD.
5 Johor Sg Johor Sg Johor 334.14 55
It is recommended that ORS could be
provided as mitigation measures during
the low flow period
10% of time (37 days) flow < 282 MLD

6 Bertam Sg Melaka 200 Days the river or dam level dropped to to
Critical Level:
Melaka 130 Bertam
7 Sebukor Sg Melaka 71.4 • Durian Tunggal Dam = 20
(2018), 278 (2019), 122 (2020)
• Sg Melaka = 1 (2017), 15
3-22
Raw Water
Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD)
(2018), 132 (2019), 71 (2021)
Sebukur
(2018), 278 (2019), 122 (2020)
Sg Melaka basin has experience

unusual drought during the 2019 to early
year of 2020 period. The drought had
caused the dam storage in the Sg
Malaka basin dropped to critical level
and water rationing has been carried out.
The incident had shown insufficient

water source within the basin to meet the
water demand. Source work to provide
storage at the downstream of the basin
are needed as well the water transfer
from adjacent basins could be
implemented.
3-23
Table 3-4: Summary of WTPs under storage scheme with insufficient storage sustainability
Raw Water
Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD)
Tk Bahang Dam = 18 MCM.
1 Batu Ferringgi 126 Sg Air Hitam Dam = 2.6 MCM.
Tk Bahang
86 days
Dam
2 Guillemard 84 The dry period in the northern region has
the possibility to span over 3 months;
Pulau
Pinang
Detailed dam yield assessment is
3 Air Itam Sg Air Itam 57.75 45 days
confirm the dam catchment yield and
possibility to increase the dam storage or
sources.
Sultan Azlan Shah Dam = 28.6 MCM.
The dry period in the northern region has

4 Sg Kinta 238.67 the possibility to span over 3 months;
Sultan Azlan
Perak 75 days
Shah Dam Detailed dam yield assessment is
Ulu Kinta (MUC Ulu confirm the dam catchment yield and
5 143.2 possibility to increase the dam storage or
Kinta)
sources.
3-24
Raw Water
Plant (WTP) Source
(MLD)
Durian Durian Tunggal Dam = 32.6 MCM
6 Bertam DAF I 126 129 days Based on the storage sustainability, the
Tunggal Dam
dam can last up to 129 days which is
sufficient to cater for the 3 months
drought.
Melaka
7 Bertam DAF II 126 129 days However, historical records show the
storage at only 50% for 20 days in 2018,
278 days in 2019 and 122 days in 202
3-25
Based on the received intake and dam water level records, there is a total of 17 intakes and 10
dams for the WTPs in Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Johor and Melaka have recorded water level
below the critical low level in the past few years (refer Section 2.5 for details). Summary of these
WTPs that have low water level compared to their ciritival level is shown in Table 3-5. This water
level assessment exercise meant to serve as an indication on the performance of the intake
concurrent with the findings from the water availability assessment. There are intakes where the
flow is found to be sufficient to meet the WTP raw requirement but the recorded water level at the
intake shows records below the critical low level or vice-versa.
The first scenario could be due to insufficient river command level in relative to the intake invert
level or pump level which affect the efficiency of water to be abstracted despite sufficient flow at
the intake. This could be resulted from the followings:
 Improper design of the intake - high intake level in relation to the low flow level.
 Lowering of the river bed level from its designed level due to scouring near the intake.
 Limitation in dam operating procedure which causing delay in the flow arriving to the
regulated intake during the dry period.
The second scenario is where the flow is found to be insufficient but there has been no recorded
intake or dam operational level dropped below the critical low level. This could be due to the short
period of the operating records for assessment or the severe drought that has not taken place.
3-26
Water Resources Yield Assesment Report
Table 3-5: Summary of these WTPs that have low water level compared to their critical level
Water Treatment Design River Critical Days below Critical Level Data Period
No Water Source
Plant (WTP) Capacity (MLD) Basin Level (m) (Year) Available
Sg
1 SSP1 950 Sg Selangor 3.3 1 (2019) 2018-2020
Selangor
Sg
2 SSP3 800 Sg Selangor 3 1 (2019), 1 (2020) 2019-2020
Selangor
3 Sg Linggi 136.36 Sg Linggi Sg Linggi 1 9 (2020) 2020
4 Sg Terip 304.55 Sg Linggi Sg Batang Penar 0.6 71 (2020) 2020
5 Gemas Baru 36.36 Sg Muar Sg Muar 0.1 85 (2020) 2020
6 Bukit Serampang 4.55 Sg Muar Sg Muar -0.1 24 (2020) 2020
7 Gombang 3.18 Sg Muar Sg Muar 0.1 2 (2020) 2020
8 Pancor (1 – 4) 103.63 Sg Muar Sg Muar -0.7 2 (2020) 2020
9 Bukit Hampar 14.18 Sg Muar Sg Segamat 4.5 137 (2020) 2020
Kampung Tengah (1 Sg Segamat
10 44.36 Sg Muar 4.5 137 (2020) 2020
+ 2) (Kampung Tengah 2)
11 Jementah 2.27 Sg Muar Sg Jementah 36.2 1 (2020) 2020
12 Gunung Ledang 13.64 Sg Muar Gunung Ledang Dam 305.04 15 (2020) 2020
13 Bandar Tenggara 27.26 Sg Johor Sg Pengeli 23.4 98 (2020) 2020
14 Linggiu 1.82 Sg Johor Sg Johor 5 157 (2020) 2020
15 Sg Layang 358 Sg Johor Upper Layang Dam 23.5 330 (2020) 2020
16 Sg Layang 358 Sg Johor Lower Layang Dam 3.78 352 (2020) 2020
17 Sg Lebam 54.55 Sg Johor Lebam Dam 12.32 302 (2020) 2020
Sg Sedili
18 Lok Heng 5.46 Sg Sedili Kecil 1.3 44 (2020) 2020
Kecil
Sg Sedili
19 Sg Gembut 9.09 Sg Gembut 0 29 (2020) 2020
Besar
20 Simpang Renggam 64 Sg Benut Sg Benut 14.84 3 (2020) 2020
21 Gunung Pulai 81.83 Sg Pulai Pulai 1 Dam 44.67 114 (2020) 2020
Sg
22 Asahan 4.5 Asahan Dam 60% 66 (2018), 147 (2019), 45 (2020) 2018-2020
Kesang
3-27
Water Treatment Design River Critical Days below Critical Level Data Period
No Water Source
Plant (WTP) Capacity (MLD) Basin Level (m) (Year) Available
Sg
23 Bertam 182 Durian Tunggal Dam 60% 20 (2018), 278 (2019), 122 (2020) 2018-2020
Melaka
Sg 1 (2017), 15 (2018),
24 Bertam 182 Sg Melaka 1.6 2017-2020
Melaka 132 (2019), 71 (2021)
Sg
25 Bertam DAF I 120 Durian Tunggal Dam 60% 20 (2018), 278 (2019), 122 (2020) 2018-2020
Melaka
Sg
26 Bertam DAF II 120 Durian Tunggal Dam 60% 20 (2018), 278 (2019), 122 (2020) 2018-2020
Melaka
Sg
27 Sebukor 78 Durian Tunggal Dam 60% 20 (2018), 278 (2019), 122 (2020) 2018-2020
Melaka
indicate the flow assessment show sufficiency to meet the WTPs raw water requirement but with records of WL lower than critical low level
3-28
The followings are the conclusion and recommendations that could be drawn from this Study:
i. For the scheme where the 7Q50 has been derived using the HP 12 or low flow
frequency analysis, it provides indication on yield sufficiency in meeting the WTP raw
water requirement. For scheme where the derived yield is found to be insufficient,
mitigation measures such as provision of the raw water storage using ORS is
recommended to increase the yield for the scheme.
ii. For regulating scheme where the FDC values have been derived based on the historical
streamflow records reflecting the scheme regulated operation, it provides indication on
the scheme performance with findings on the flow availability at different percentage of
time and average numbers of water deficit days against the WTP raw water requirement.
For scheme where the FDC shows insufficiency, it could be due to limitation in the dam
or ORS operating procedure which causing insufficient release or delay in the release to
regulate the WTP intake. This findigns is useful to gauge the efficiency of the current
operating procedure and provide indication for further investigation and future
improvement to the current operating procedure.
iii. For direct supply storage scheme where the simple water balance computation has been
conducted, it provides indication on the sustainability of the dam storage to meet the
WTP raw water requirement. This assessment is based on the assumptions that the
dam storage is full at the onset of the drought and is able to recharge to its full supply
level prior to the next drought episode. It does not provide conclusion on the yield for the
direct supply dam. For direct supply scheme that shows insufficiency in the storage
days, it is recommended that the detail assessment to be carried out to assess the dam
yield to confirm the dam catchment yield and possibility to increase the dam storage or
the need to transfer water from other sources to increase the dam storage. Provision of
additional storage may be required to increase the water sufficiency.
iv. From the assessment of the WTP intake and dam operation records, there are WTPs
showing flow sufficiency in meeting the WTP raw water requirement but with previous
water level records dropped below the critical low level. This suggested futher
assessment by the WTP operators to revisit the intake design or identify any possible
change in the river bed level that affecting the intake efficiency.
v. Besides, the assessment of climate change impact on yield has also been carried out by
reviewing the latest report published by NAHRIM in year 2014, namely ‘Extension Study
of the Impacts of Climate Change on the Hydrologic Regime and Water Resources of
Peninsular Malaysia 2014’. From the findings of NAHRIM CC 2014 study, it can be seen
that the minimum monthly mean flow of all the selected river basins (Sg Batu Pahat, Sg
3-29
Johor, Sg Muda, Sg Klang, Sg Kelantan, Sg Linggi, Sg Muar, Sg Pahang, Sg Perak, Sg
Selangor, and Sg Dungun) will experience a decreasing trend resulting from the climate
change impact. Hence, it could be foreseen that the low flow available at the 11 selected
river basins will reduce in the future due to the impact of climate change. Provision of
additional water storage to store the water during high flow and used it during dry
season is anticipated as the adaption measures for the climate change.
3-30
CHAPTER 4 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
4.1 Introduction
GIS is a computer-based tool that captures, analyses, stores, manipulates and visualizes spatial
or geographic information, practically in the form of map. GIS application allows end users to
perform spatial query, analysis, edit spatial data and create hardcopy maps. It is an excellent
platform for data integration and provide basis for a spatial decision support system. GIS supports
decision making by providing ways to examine and choose among alternative solutions, and takes
decision-makers beyond the point of simply possessing data, information, and knowledge (Bunch
et al., 2012)
ArcGIS software was used as a tool for the input and manipulation of the spatial information in this
Study. GIS data compiled in this Study are:
 WTP location;
 Intake location;
 Dam location;
 River system;
 Intake catchment boundary; and
 Dam catchment boundary.
The ArcGIS software comes with ArcMap, Arc Scene, and Arc Catalog. An ArcMap is used as a
platform to create, query, analysis and visualization of geospatial data, while the Arc Scene is
used to visualize any 3D data in the Study. ArcCatalog is used mostly to organize various types of
spatial and non-spatial data in this Study.
4.2 Approach
A GIS dataset is a collection of related feature classes that share a common coordinate system.
As datasets are fundamental importance to all successive analyses and calculations, it is very
important to develop a dataset structure that can organize, store, retrieve and analyse these data.
All diagnosis processes of this Study depend on various data that can be categorized as entity-
related data and spatial data.
The development of GIS Dataset for this Study can be categorized into four phases, namely data
collection and compilation, data review, topology checking and data transformation. Figure 4-1
shows the process of developing GIS Dataset.
4-1
Figure 4-1: Development of GIS dataset
4.2.1 Data Collection and Compilation
Water services related spatial data (i.e. WTP, intake and dam location) and basic geospatial
information such as river system and hydro-meteorological stations were collected for the Study.
4.2.2 Data Review and Topology Checking
The spatial data were reviewed using ArcMap to identify the current projection and the main
sources of the data. The spatial data validity was assessed to ensure it displays the current and
updated information that meets the Study’s requirement.
4.2.3 Projection Transformation
To meet the requirement of the Terms of Reference (TOR), the acquired spatial data have been
updated and converted into both geographical and Cartesian or projected coordinate reference
system, which are WGS 1984 and Geodetic Datum of Malaysia 2000 in Rectified Skew
Orthomorphic Projection (GDM2000 MRSO) respectively. The GDM 2000 MRSO is realized by
the coordinates of the seventeen (17) MASS stations (called Zero Order Network of Malaysia)
referred to the above defined ellipsoid within the International Earth Rotation Service Terrestrial
Reference Frame 2000 (ITRF2000) at epoch 2nd January 2000. The absolute accuracy of the
MASS stations coordinates is around 1 –2 cm. The GIS data in this Study are provided in both
GDM 2000 and WGS 1984 projection.
4-2
4.2.4 File GIS Dataset
GIS Dataset consists of vector data or shapefile that contains attribute information and geometric
location of geographic features. The Study employs vector information to be spatially presented
and stored for further processing and analysis procedure. The distribution of the water services-
related shapefile in this Study are shown in Figure 4-2 to Figure 4-7. The WTPs, intakes and
intakes catchments shapefiles comprise of the 150 WTPs and intakes in this Study. The dams and
dam catchments consist of the dams located in the 150 intake catchments. The river shapefiles
cover the whole river networks in Malaysia.
Figure 4-2 Distribution of WTPs in this Study
Figure 4-3 Distribution of intake points in this Study
4-3
Figure 4-4 Distribution of the dams in this Study
Figure 4-5: Distribution of the river system in Malaysia
4-4
Figure 4-6 Distribution of the intake catchments in this Study
Figure 4-7: Distribution of the dam catchments in this Study
4.2.5 Field Names
Field names are the names for the columns in the attribute table. The names indicate the data
contained in each column. The field names from each shapefile in this Study are shown in Figure
4-8 to Figure 4-13.
4-5
Figure 4-8: Field names for WTPs in this Study
Figure 4-9: Field names for intakes in this Study
4-6
Figure 4-10: Field names of dams in this Study
Figure 4-11: Field names of river system (Peninsular Malaysia)
4-7
Figure 4-12: Field names of river system (Borneo Malaysia)
Figure 4-13: Field names of intake catchments in this Study
4-8
APPENDIX A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS
I. Sg Perlis Basin – Timah Tasoh WTP
A-1
II. Sg Kedah Basin – Arau Fasa 1, 2 & 3 WTP, Arau Fasa 4 WTP, Sg Baru WTP, Bukit
Jenun Baru WTP, Bukit Pinang WTP, Padang Sanai WTP, Pelubang WTP and Pokok
Sena WTP
A-2
III. Sg Melaka Basin – Padang Saga Fasa 3 WTP
IV. Sg Kerian Basin – Lubuk Buntar Baru WTP (25) + Lama WTP (34.1)
A-3
V. Sg Merbok Basin – Bukit Tupah WTP
A-4
VI. Sg Muda Basin – Baling Baru WTP (10 + 5.5), Jeniang Baru WTP, Pinang Tunggal
WTP, Kulim Hi-Tech WTP and Sg Petani WTP
A-5
VII. Sg Perai Basin – Sg Ular WTP, Bukit Toh Allang WTP and Sg Dua WTP
VIII. Sg Tk. Bahang Basin - Batu Ferringgi WTP and Guillemard WTP
A-6
IX. Sg Dondang - Air Itam WTP
A-7
X. Sg Perak Basin – Sg Kampar WTP, Bukit Temoh (Sg Batang Padang) WTP, Bukit
Temoh (Sg Woh) WTP, Hilir Perak WTP, Kampung Paloh WTP, Sultan Idris Shah II
(MUC Parit) WTP, Teluk Kepayang WTP, Sg Kinta WTP and Ulu Kinta (MUC Ulu
Kinta) WTP
A-8
XI. Sg Kurau Basin – Gunung Semanggol WTP and Sg Kerian - Jalan Baru WTP
XII. Sg Temerloh Basin - Air Terjun WTP
A-9
XIII. Sg Bernam Basin – Sg Geliting WTP, Kalumpang WTP, and Bernam River
Headworks (Lama & Baru) WTP and Sg Tengi Basin – Sg Sireh WTP
A-10
XIV. Sg Selangor Basin – SSP1 WTP, SSP2 WTP, SSP3 WTP, Rasa WTP, Rantau Panjang
WTP, Batang Kali WTP, Kuala Kubu Bharu WTP and Sg Rangkap WTP
A-11
XV. Sg Klang Basin – Gombak WTP, Ampang Intake WTP, Sungat Batu WTP, Wangsa
Maju WTP and Bukit Nanas WTP
XVI. Sg Buloh Basin – North Hammock WTP and Kepong WTP
A-12
XVII. Sg Langat Basin – Sg Semenyih WTP, Salak Tinggi WTP, Sg Labu WTP, Sungat
Langat WTP, Cheras Mile 11 WTP, Bukit Tampoi WTP, Semenyih 2 WTP and
Labohan Dagang WTP
A-13
XVIII. Sg Pahang Basin – Langat 2 WTP, Sg Semantan WTP, Lubuk Kawah WTP,
Ganchong WTP, Seberang Temerloh WTP, Jengka Utama WTP, Sg Bilut WTP, Kuala
Medang WTP, Bukit Betong WTP, Sg Jelai WTP, Benta WTP, Jengka 3 – 7 WTP,
Triang WTP, Lepar Hilir WTP, Jengka 8 WTP, Bentong Fasa 2 WTP, Sg Keloi WTP
and Chini Mentiga WTP
A-14
A-15
XIX. Sg Kuantan Basin – Panching WTP, Semambu WTP and Bukit Ubi WTP
A-16
XX. Sg Pontian Basin – Sepayang WTP
XXI. Sg Rompin Basin – Keratong WTP
XXII. Sg Paka Basin – Bukit Bauk WTP
A-17
XXIII. Sg Besut Basin – Bukit Bunga WTP
XXIV. Sg Kemaman Basin – Bukit Sah WTP
A-18
XXV. Sg Terengganu Basin – Hulu Terengganu WTP, Kepong I WTP, Kepong II WTP and
Losong WTP
A-19
XXVI. Sg Kelantan Basin – Bukit Remah WTP, Merbau Chondong WTP, Kelar WTP, Sg
Ketil WTP and Pahi WTP
A-20
XXVII. Sg Linggi Basin – Sg Linggi WTP, Sawah Raja WTP, Ngoi-Ngoi WTP and Sg Terip
A-21
XXVIII. Sg Muar Basin – Gemencheh WTP, Jempol WTP, Kuala Jelai WTP, Gemas Baru
WTP, Palong Timur WTP, Air Panas (A + C) WTP, Bukit Serampang WTP, Grisek
WTP, Gombang WTP, Pancor (1 - 4) WTP, Bukit Hampar WTP, Kampung Tengah (1 +
2) WTP, Pemanis WTP, Jementah WTP and Gunung Ledang WTP
A-22
XXIX. Sg Johor Basin – Bandar Tenggara WTP, Batu 2 WTP, Sg Sayong 1 WTP, Sg
Sayong 2 WTP, Semangar WTP, Sg Johor WTP, Linggiu WTP, Sg Layang WTP and
Sg Lebam WTP
A-23
XXX. Sg Batu Pahat Basin – Sembrong Barat WTP, Parit Raja 4 WTP and Sri Gading WTP
XXXI. Sg Endau Basin – Endau WTP, Nitar WTP, Kahang Baru WTP, Kahang Timor WTP
and Sembrong Timor WTP
A-24
XXXII. Sg Sedili Kecil Basin – Lok Heng WTP
XXXIII. Sg Mersing Basin – Mersing Baru WTP
A-25
XXXIV. Sg Skudai Basin – Skudai WTP
XXXV. Sg Sedili Besar Basin – Sg Gembut WTP and Tenggaroh WTP
A-26
XXXVI. Sg Benut Basin – Simpang Renggam WTP
XXXVII. Sg Pulai Basin – Gunung Pulai WTP
A-27
XXXVIII. Sg Tenglu Besar Basin – Tenglu WTP
XXXIX. Sg Kesang Basin – Asahan WTP, Chin-Chin WTP, and Merlimau WTP
A-28
XL. Sg Melaka Basin – Bertam DAF I WTP, Bertam DAF II WTP, Gadek WTP, Bertam
WTP and Sebukor WTP
XLI. Sg Padas Basin – Kampung Lawa Gadong, Beaufort WTP
A-29
APPENDIX B WORKED EXAMPLES OF LOW FLOW FREQUENCY
ANALYSIS
I. Intake of Hilir Perak WTP (Flow Transposition Method)
Problem:
Derive the hydrological yield for Hilir Perak intake catchment (420 km²). The relevant data are
given as below:
Catchment area at Hilir Perak intake (A) = 420 km²

Catchment area at key streamflow station – Sg Sungkai at Sungkai (Ao) = 289 km²
Mean annual rainfall at Hilir Perak intake catchment (R) = 3,085 mm
Mean annual rainfall at the key streamflow station catchment (Ro) = 2,760 mm
Mean annual flow rate at the key streamflow station catchment (𝑄𝐾𝑒𝑦 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ) = 14.65 m³/s
Solution:
Step 1: Compute the mean annual losses at key streamflow station, Lo
𝐿𝑜 = 𝑅𝑜 − 𝑄𝐾𝑒𝑦 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
24 × 60 × 60 × 365
= 2,760 𝑚𝑚 − (14.65 𝑚3 /𝑠 × )
289 𝑘𝑚² × 1000
= 2,760 𝑚𝑚 − 1,598 𝑚𝑚
= 1,162 𝑚𝑚
Step 2: Compute the transposition factor, C

(𝑅 − 𝐿𝜊)
𝐶 =𝐴×
𝐴𝜊 ∗ (𝑅𝜊 − 𝐿𝜊)
(3,085 𝑚𝑚 − 1,162 mm)
= 420 𝑘𝑚² ×
289 𝑘𝑚²(2,760 𝑚𝑚 − 1,162 mm)
= 1.75
Step 3: Identify existing potable abstraction(s) located upstream of Hilir Perak intake
No upstream potable abstraction is identified.
Step 4: Transpose the daily flow series of key streamflow station to Hilir Perak intake
catchment
𝑄𝐾𝑔. 𝐿𝑎𝑤𝑎 𝐺𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑛𝑔,𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑢𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑡 = 𝐶 × 𝑄𝐾𝑒𝑦 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
= 1.75 × 𝑄𝐾𝑒𝑦 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
B-1
Sample of transposed flow at Hilir Perak intake:
Transposed Flow at Hilir Perak Intake

Date Flow at Key Streamflow Station (m³/s)
(m³/s)
1/1/1961 20.77 36.37
2/1/1961 18.25 31.95
3/1/1961 17.02 29.80
4/1/1961 18.7 32.74
5/1/1961 20.42 35.75
6/1/1961 20.62 36.10
7/1/1961 34.01 59.55
8/1/1961 24.36 42.65
9/1/1961 20.68 36.21
10/1/1961 21.66 37.92
11/1/1961 19.76 34.60
12/1/1961 18.35 32.13
13/1/1961 17.28 30.25
14/1/1961 15.87 27.79
15/1/1961 14.45 25.30
16/1/1961 14.85 26.00
17/1/1961 13.61 23.83
18/1/1961 14.89 26.07
19/1/1961 10.73 18.79
20/1/1961 10.36 18.14
21/1/1961 10.3 18.03
22/1/1961 9.05 15.85
23/1/1961 10.19 17.84
24/1/1961 9.7 16.98
25/1/1961 8.75 15.32
26/1/1961 7.76 13.59
27/1/1961 6.97 12.20
28/1/1961 7.33 12.83
29/1/1961 7.04 12.33
30/1/1961 6.55 11.47
31/1/1961 5.87 10.28
B-2
Step 5: Derive the annual minimum 7-day flow series at Hilir Perak intake catchment
Year Annual Minimum 7-day Flow (m3/s) Year Annual Minimum 7-day Flow (m3/s)
1960 5.72 1982 7.41
1961 5.02 1983 6.31
1962 7.72 1984 12.16
1963 10.88 1985 10.51
1964 18.14 1986 10.08
1965 8.49 1987 12.32
1966 15.05 1988 14.45
1967 16.26 1989 14.65
1968 9.55 1990 14.43
1969 11.19 1991 31.71
1970 8.37 1992 10.95
1971 8.65 1995 10.36
1972 8.63 1996 13.02
1973 8.55 1997 10.06
1974 10.95 1998 3.35
1975 11.19 1999 26.55
1976 9.60 2000 23.01
1977 4.68 2002 7.53
1978 7.11 2003 13.46
1979 8.78 2004 16.12
1980 7.93 2005 14.37
1981 8.91 2006 21.91
Step 6: Conduct low flow frequency analysis on long-term annual minimum 7-day flow to
derive the hydrological yield (7Q50) at Hilir Perak intake catchment
Flow
ARI (year) 3
(m /s) (MLD)
2 10.26 887
5 7.85 678
10 6.37 551
20 4.86 420
50 3.45 298
100 2.87 248
Step 7: Assess the sufficiency of yield at Hilir Perak intake

(a) 7Q50 at Hilir Perak Intake = 298 MLD
(b) Design Capacity of Hilir Perak WTP = 109 MLD
(c) Raw Water Requirement (WTP Design Capacity + 5% WTP losses) = 114.45 MLD
7Q50 at Hilir Perak Intake (298 MLD) > Raw Water Requirement (114.45 MLD) → Sufficient
B-3
II. Intake of Skudai WTP (TM-WBM)
Problem:
Derive the hydrological yield for Skudai intake catchment (189 km²). The identified rainfall and
evaporation stations are given as below:
Type of Station Station ID Station Name

Rainfall 1536110 Ldg. Senai di Senai
Evaporation 1539301 Loji Air Sg. Layang
Solution:
The TM-WBM has incorporated some modifications to the baseflow and direct runoff parameters
as recommended by JICA in the report, The Feasibility Study on Small Reservoir Development in
Peninsular Malaysia (1995). The conceptual layout of the model is shown as below.
Modified Runoff Model
Step 1: Input long-term daily rainfall data of Ldg. Senair di Senai into TM-WBM
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
1948 708 214 239 220 567 59 187 136 132 367 221 332 3,382
1949 84 161 258 293 154 228 236 210 204 280 395 327 2,829
1950 278 120 483 277 346 186 166 210 280 380 178 167 3,069
1951 717 442 310 219 213 64 122 131 247 264 428 188 3,346
1952 467 285 323 442 244 141 242 434 219 232 211 261 3,501
1953 77 332 317 422 134 239 337 124 251 347 205 251 3,035
1954 163 218 182 242 294 203 177 368 140 268 187 708 3,150
1955 464 231 140 272 136 113 127 166 195 349 109 276 2,577
B-4
1956 431 173 250 308 177 129 256 231 233 149 472 238 3,046
1957 150 265 414 218 382 134 231 195 156 322 243 415 3,122
1958 174 186 160 291 320 182 76 280 21 191 350 156 2,386
1959 169 284 383 412 308 116 191 217 225 482 232 554 3,573
1960 228 258 314 176 102 265 179 166 295 314 248 162 2,707
1961 153 168 154 244 215 280 267 53 165 189 367 144 2,400
1962 139 242 273 326 234 253 206 252 168 313 225 223 2,855
1963 109 259 194 90 205 131 133 139 206 110 289 243 2,108
1964 174 492 281 310 116 109 62 377 114 208 176 324 2,744
1965 30 169 76 242 192 197 77 409 219 359 344 271 2,585
1966 206 106 139 342 145 107 113 97 88 235 233 407 2,218
1967 301 412 59 338 247 87 130 53 163 186 322 602 2,901
1968 127 6 304 149 262 243 117 141 224 275 275 180 2,304
1969 198 171 198 285 232 155 131 371 84 116 207 692 2,841
1970 58 157 267 425 171 134 179 145 162 348 330 217 2,593
1971 71 107 133 52 166 122 57 358 127 214 212 286 1,905
1972 89 210 78 339 94 164 41 186 245 177 281 190 2,093
1973 325 381 251 384 155 141 107 341 120 124 182 181 2,692
1974 117 161 21 185 213 226 100 90 199 119 110 41 1,580
1975 194 187 273 172 179 163 153 156 100 212 208 159 2,154
1976 50 52 191 281 112 159 178 88 139 241 262 272 2,022
1977 33 202 26 158 205 102 187 210 274 113 246 205 1,959
1978 130 111 234 279 155 111 260 125 85 245 263 127 2,125
1979 107 105 290 293 69 249 202 126 335 219 448 253 2,696
1980 247 85 317 273 270 203 148 223 199 351 260 315 2,891
1981 28 154 94 244 307 99 253 81 206 253 97 297 2,113
1982 98 87 312 303 356 55 64 227 49 188 382 325 2,446
1983 200 86 56 120 250 196 174 252 156 111 152 313 2,066
1984 422 309 125 225 274 153 128 108 177 206 224 269 2,620
1985 194 172 386 151 171 51 186 132 360 175 128 145 2,251
1986 190 28 412 213 192 156 201 93 180 113 111 102 1,991
1987 443 21 153 126 115 112 125 227 157 255 290 209 2,232
1988 144 293 319 152 143 284 180 257 355 140 298 68 2,630
1989 65 24 65 66 124 85 102 483 191 157 434 104 1,899
1990 97 48 162 240 256 142 149 109 198 209 90 192 1,890
1991 91 42 124 130 308 109 72 64 239 363 225 833 2,597
1992 108 40 22 268 252 227 453 143 157 177 311 424 2,580
1993 279 124 360 255 411 179 262 407 480 212 506 258 3,730
1994 115 258 480 224 260 173 143 167 62 429 361 317 2,988
1995 257 466 196 510 333 178 265 313 240 252 313 117 3,440
1996 236 103 221 314 187 174 175 295 149 225 333 278 2,687
1997 48 71 260 369 213 259 95 302 55 278 605 375 2,930
1998 354 65 98 457 457 163 459 236 180 392 162 440 3,463
B-5
1999 282 124 259 70 173 98 81 137 164 217 206 126 1,936
2000 308 341 285 391 243 227 143 273 333 330 365 294 3,533
2001 728 80 162 308 217 177 183 180 249 209 236 324 3,053
2002 190 26 246 237 264 103 165 265 187 186 278 97 2,244
2003 308 126 93 156 70 146 186 261 221 279 263 173 2,282
2004 468 23 338 132 162 102 314 195 568 455 403 195 3,355
2005 119 121 72 109 375 75 163 256 206 332 182 154 2,164
2006 308 84 43 237 120 132 43 89 98 116 227 394 1,891
2007 380 128 67 80 55 95 65 69 120 56 208 355 1,678
2008 190 75 407 383 134 346 210 147 121 230 216 143 2,601
2009 4 117 347 326 397 106 123 340 78 158 381 112 2,490
2010 164 62 213 413 221 183 326 198 330 141 393 211 2,852
2011 379 30 181 160 243 86 72 199 143 312 352 40 2,193
2012 4 144 128 107 293 117 116 350 126 253 355 342 2,332
2013 254 263 222 323 230 40 56 208 350 280 282 352 2,857
2014 110 20 140 466 278 133 284 241 138 270 313 256 2,647
2015 141 7 128 318 248 199 257 168 211 214 183 174 2,246
2016 118 193 78 143 153 173 130 96 143 43 215 177 1,661
2017 182 181 448 405 220 101 82 144 290 136 279 316 2,782
2018 164 47 166 313 208 288 78 162 170 293 255 204 2,346
2019 65 35 50 186 217 48 30 40 84 225 197 403 1,577
Long-
term 211 161 215 258 224 155 166 204 193 238 271 268 2,565
Average
B-6
Step 2: Input long-term mean monthly potential evapotranspiration (PE) of Loji Air Sg.
Layang into TM-WBM
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
PE (mm) 81 75 103 83 76 97 90 85 67 85 65 67 974
Step 3: Insert other model parameters required

(a) Intake catchment area = 189 km²
(b) Baseflow = 0.12 m³/s
(c) Soil water holding capacity = 250 mm
(d) Recession constant, K = 0.98
(e) The direct runoff rate = 0.10 (for annual rainfall > 2,500 mm)
B-7
Step 4: Derive FDC for Skudai intake
Flow
Percentile 3
(m /s) (MLD)
10 16.44 1,421
20 13.36 1,154
30 11.52 995
40 10.12 874
50 8.91 770
60 7.72 667
70 6.55 566
80 5.37 464
85 4.65 401
90 3.79 328
95 2.73 236
96 2.46 212
97 2.08 180
98 1.58 137
99 0.74 64
100 0.12 10
B-8
Step 5: Derive the annual minimum 7-day flow series at Skudai intake catchment
Annual Minimum 7-day Flow Annual Minimum 7-day Flow

Year Year
(m3/s) (m3/s)
1949 5.74 1984 3.24
1950 6.64 1985 3.85
1951 2.58 1986 3.30
1952 9.62 1987 2.10
1953 5.51 1988 4.91
1954 7.10 1990 2.72
1955 2.80 1991 1.43
1956 6.08 1992 4.86
1957 5.99 1993 9.14
1958 3.19 1994 3.09
1959 6.61 1995 9.16
1960 5.14 1996 5.78
1961 4.79 1997 3.46
1962 4.73 1998 6.60
1963 2.87 1999 1.38
1964 3.71 2000 7.21
1965 3.33 2001 6.09
1966 1.79 2002 4.91
1967 1.52 2003 2.10
1968 4.81 2004 4.03
1969 3.95 2005 2.66
1970 4.58 2006 0.40
1971 1.50 2007 0.34
1972 2.31 2008 4.82
1973 4.86 2009 2.14
1974 2.00 2010 3.28
1975 3.01 2011 2.11
1976 1.99 2012 1.90
1977 2.68 2013 2.39
1978 2.90 2014 3.33
1979 3.48 2015 3.30
1980 5.96 2016 2.16
1981 3.51 2017 3.37
1982 2.57 2018 3.86
1983 2.36 2019 0.54
B-9
Step 6: Conduct low flow frequency analysis on long-term annual minimum 7-day flow to
derive the hydrological yield (7Q50) at Skudai intake catchment
Flow
ARI (year) 3
(m /s) (MLD)
2 3.49 301.7
5 2.10 181.6
10 1.53 132.5
20 1.13 97.8
50 0.75 64.5
100 0.53 45.4
Step 7: Assess the sufficiency of yield at Skudai intake

(a) 7Q50 at Skudai Intake = 64.5 MLD
(b) Design Capacity of Skudai WTP = 68.19 MLD
(c) Current Abstraction at Skudai Intake = 77.38 MLD
7Q50 at Skudai Intake (64.5 MLD) < Current Abstraction at Skudai Intake (77.38 MLD) →
Insufficient
B-10

Water Resources Yield Assesment Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Water Resources Yield Assesment Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water Resources Yield Assesment Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WATER RESOURCES

YIELD ASSESSMENT REPORT

G&P DAMS & WATER SERVICES SDN.BHD.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. ES-1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Study Objectives ...................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Scope of Works ....................................................................................................... 1-1

CHAPTER 2 YIELD ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Data Collected for the Study .................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 2-7

2.4 Yield Assessment .................................................................................................. 2-22

2.4.3.2 Sg Kedah Basin – NAWABS Sg Kedah (JPS, 2019/2020).................................... 2-38

2.4.3.4 Sg Muda Basin – NAWABS Sg Muda (JPS, 2018/2019) and Additional

2.4.3.9 Sg Bernam Basin – NAWABS Sg Bernam (JPS, 2020) ........................................ 2-52

2.4.3.12 Sg Buloh Basin – IRBM Sg Klang (LUAS, 2016) ................................................... 2-64

2.4.3.26 Sg Melaka Basin – NAWABS Sg Melaka (JPS, 2019/2020) and Additional

Analysis ................................................................................................................ 2-110

2.5 Assessment of Intake and Dam Water Level ...................................................... 2-117

2.6 Assessment of Climate Change Impact on Yield ................................................ 2-130

CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 3-1

CHAPTER 4 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM .................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Approach ................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2.1 Data Collection and Compilation ............................................................................. 4-2

4.2.2 Data Review and Topology Checking ..................................................................... 4-2

4.2.3 Projection Transformation........................................................................................ 4-2

4.2.4 File GIS Dataset ...................................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.5 Field Names ............................................................................................................. 4-5

APPENDIX A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS

CHAPTER 2 YIELD ASSESSMENT

Table 2-33: List of Study intakes in Sg Muar Basin ........................................................................... 2-87

CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 2 YIELD ASSESSMENT

Figure 2-35: Schematic diagram of Sg Melaka Basin...................................................................... 2-111

CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 4 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM

Table ES1: List of intakes for Yield Study

No. State Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Design Capacity (MLD)

The methodologies mainly comprise the followings:

C. General Remarks Applied in the Yield Assessment

 Intake design capacity;

D. Findings and Discussions

D1. Yield Assessment

Figure ES1: Yield assessment methodology and number or intakes sufficiency

The derived 7Q50 in this Study is found to be insufficient.

The derived 7Q50 in this Study is found to be insufficient.

Days where river level at intake dropped to Critical Level = 9

It is recommended that off-river storage (ORS) could be

Raw Water 50-year ARI

The derived 7Q50 in this Study is found to be insufficient.

The 7Q50 was derived in this Study after reviewing the

Days below where river level at intake dropped to Critical

The 7Q50 was derived in this Study after reviewing the

The 7Q50 was derived after reviewing the Kajian Sumber

Yield of Sg Layang WTP = 106.44 MLD (total nett direct

Sg Layang WTP could be supplemented by water pumped

The 7Q50 was derived in this Study after reviewing the

The derived 7Q50 in this Study is found to be insufficient.

Raw Water 50-year ARI

Further assessment could be carried out