[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

dam-l SA NGO letter on Thukela dam/LS


The following are some comments on a dam proposed by South Africa's Dept.
of Water Affairs, the Thukela Water Project. The comments are from Wildlife
and Env Society in KwaZulu-Natal.


>        16 May 1999
>
>
>
>        The Manager
>        Environmental Management Component
>        Thukela Water Project
>        Institute of Natural Resources
>        Private Bag X 01
>        Scottsville   3209
>
>        Fax. (0331) 46-0895
>
>        Attention: Mrs J Mander

>
>        Dear Madam
>
>        THUKELA WATER PROJECT:
>
>        INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP
>
>        Thank you for providing the Wildlife and Environment Society with
>the opportunity to take part in the Integrated Environmental Management
>Strategic Assessment Workshop for the Thukela Water Project that took
>place in Pietermartizburg on 29 April.
>
>        For the reasons discussed with yourself on the telephone we were
>unable to send a representative to the workshop. However as agreed during
>our conversation we have prepared a response to the briefing document that
>you sent us. This is set out below.
>
>        1. Pre-feasibility study alternatives
>
>        To date a series of technical alternatives have been presented to
>interested and affected parties using newsletters distributed by ACER
>(Africa). These alternatives have focused only on possible sites for dams
>in the Thukela catchment and have not included those that involve reducing
>the water demand of customers within the area supplied by the Vaal River
>system. We are concerned that the project team have not been given the
>mandate to seriously considered the "no dam" option as one of their
>alternatives. We acknowledge that the Orange River system and the LHWP
>form part of DWAF's macro study.

>
>        2. Water demand management study
>
>        We believe that the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry in
>association with Rand Water should carry out a parallel study that looks
>at the viability of reducing the water demand of Rand Water's customer
>base within the Gauteng area so as to delay or avoid building further dams
>in the three river systems (Orange, LHWP and Thukela). The programme given
>in the briefing document should be extended to provide sufficient time for
>this study to be completed.
>
>        If DWAF is committed to following the IEM process then they will
>not have a problem with accepting a further alternative.
>
>        We propose that a water demand management study be carried out to
>support the no dam alternative. This study will aim to quantify the costs
>and benefits of:
>
>        1. Encouraging industries to recycle water.
>
>        2. Reducing the quantity of water lost from water reticulation
>infrastructure.
>
>        3. Improving the efficiency of irrigation.
>
>        4. Encouraging through subsidisation the use of water saving devices.
>
>        5. Improving the operation and maintenance of existing rural water
>supplies rather than concentrating on building new schemes.
>
>        Reducing the impact of industrial tree plantations on water supply
>in the Upper Tugela River Catchment area.
>
>        We would like to bring to your attention that Durban Metro has
>undertaken to keep domestic and industrial water consumption at 1997
>levels as part of their water demand management strategy. This is being
>achieved by balancing the annual increase in demand with a corresponding
>reduction in the water lost in the infrastructure.
>
>        Once the study is complete the findings and recommendations can be
>added to those for the three present studies and debated during a workshop
>to be held sometime between January and March 2000 as outlined in the
>briefing document.
>
>        Unless an attempt is made at this stage to cost the environmental
>components of all alternatives it will become more and more difficult as
>the project moves through the various engineering stages to carry out such
>an analysis.
>
>        3. International review
>
>        At the end of the workshop mentioned above a review of the work
>carried out to date should be undertaken. A team comprising people from
>outside South Africa could be managed by an organisation such as the IUCN
>or the Global Water Partnership. This is a growing trend world wide in the
>water sector.
>
>        4. Ecological assessments
>
>        With regard to the questions as to whether or not sufficient
>attention is being paid to ecological assessments in the present planning
>studies we recommend that project specific EIAs should not form part of
>the pre-feasibility study. Once the best possible environmental
>alternative has been selected then terms of reference can be drawn up to
>carry out an EIA for a particular dam site provided the building of a dam
>is required. Focusing on an ecological assessment of a specific dam site
>at this stage is too soon.
>
>
>        We trust that the study team will consider our input and look
>forward to answering any questions that you or your colleagues may have.
>In order to be proactive we are prepared to assist with the preparation of
>the detailed terms of reference for the proposed water demand management
>study.
>
>        Yours faithfully
>
>
>        K H Cooper
>        Director: Conservation

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
      Lori Pottinger, Director, Southern Africa Program,
        and Editor, World Rivers Review
           International Rivers Network
              1847 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, California 94703, USA
                  Tel. (510) 848 1155   Fax (510) 848 1008
                        http://www.irn.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::