[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l Objection to SA's Skuifraam Dam/LS
The following was sent by a Cape Town water conservation expert to the
Ministry under whose portfolio is the Dept. of Water Affairs, which gave
approval for the Skuifraam Dam a few days before the recent elections.
The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Private Bag: X447
Pretoria
0001
Fax: 012 323 5181
20 June 1999
Dear Sir / Madam
RE: OBJECTION TO SKUIFRAAM DAM PROPOSAL
I hereby formally object to the Skuifraam Dam Proposal in accordance with
the notice to that effect from the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry
on 27 May 1999. Any silence on my part and anything inadvertently not said
may not be construed as tacit approval of this augmentation scheme.
I question the sincerity of the CMC's commitment to Water Demand Management
given the evidence.
I do not wish to dwell on the negative environmental and social impact
created by dams in general. I wish to describe the negative impact this
augmentation scheme will have germane to the Western Cape
In February 1999, I heard via the Water Demand Manager of the CMC Mr
Charles Chapman that Professor Kader Asmal Minister of Water Affairs and
Forestry was intending to announce the go-ahead for Skuifraam Dam in March.
I queried this with him, and he wrote to me and promised that he was 'doing
no such thing'. A copy of his letter is included. Furthermore in a letter,
copy to me, from the minister to the CMC Executive Director: Water and
Waste Mr Clayton, he said the decision [to proceed with water supply
augmentation options] is dependent on the provision of further and more
detailed information on the water demand programme.
Minister Kader Asmal is on record, as having said that he would not proceed
with augmentation schemes until demand measures have been implemented in
the CMC. Till now no water demand measures of any substance whatsoever have
been implemented, or at best visible to the public.
When Charles Chapman was appointed to the position of Water Demand Manager
for the CMC, he arrived in Cape Town from Rand Water, with the promise of a
budget of 50 million Rand for the first year. Soon after his arrival, this
budget was cut to 5 million, and again cut to 2 million.
While the article from The Cape Argus Tuesday 15 June 1999, (annexure
included) exposes the poor rains, high temperatures and low dam levels, the
only solution Mr Flower, (Head of operations for the CMC) is quoted as
presenting is the augmentation of water. No mention is made of Water Demand
Management or water saving.
A subsequent article dated July 13 1999 (included) is again is conspicuous
in the absence of any pleas from Mr flower to save water. More worrying
still is an article on the same page which quotes that the Metropolitan
council is so short of money that they are considering closing some major
roads for lack of maintenance funds. Yet they still plan on building a new
water augmentation scheme.
Theewaterskloof dam is the largest dam in the area that supplies water to
the CMC. When the dam was planned, two thirds of the yield was proposed for
use by the farmers in the area, but they did not take up their share, and I
have looked unsuccessfully for the reason for this. The water has now been
re-allocated to the CMC for their use. I am however aware that the apple
farmers in the Villiersdorp and Elgin area, are suffering economically as
more than forty farms are currently on the market in the area. They require
less water irrigation of their farmlands. Could this happen in the berg
river catchment area? If so, it will be a dangerous gamble to proceed with
this scheme in this are at this time.
In our society people only seem to value and treasure water only when there
is a current shortage, and so it is only at this time our municipalities
think of implementing WDM. I wish to give you two recent examples of this.
1. I annex hereto a NEWS RELEASE from the South Municipality. When their
dams were low earlier this year, (1999) they banned the use of water for
irrigation purposes, except with grey water. This was very laudable, except
with the first fall of winter rains, these restrictions were in the main
all lifted.
2. In November of 1995 when the first rains fell in the Vaal area,
following a prolonged drought, Rand Water lifted all restrictions. This was
interesting to me only in that when there were water restrictions, we were
in that area selling up to forty units to re-cycle grey water per month.
After restrictions were lifted, we sold only three units in the next nine
months, and the situation has not turned about again.
I do not doubt that these authorities and all future authorities will
always wait unit the augment schemes (dams) are empty before imposing any
restrictions on water use. Consideration should be given not to use the
content in the dams in case of drought.
Instead we should be looking forward and changing our current practices:
1. Use rain that falls on the property, obviating the necessity of
canalization to get rid of storm water in cities.
2. Re-use as much of the water coming onto the property, perhaps all
of it, ie don't use treated drinking water for things like toilet flushing
or irrigation, but rather grey water.
If we are serious about demand management, we have to be clear what water
demand management entails.
C we have to be shown where water is being used
C we need to be shown what the strategies are to cut water
consumption: fix leaks, encourage saving, by restricting use, price and any
other.
C we need to know that we can, through saving, supply far more water
than the proposed Skuifraam scheme can supply.
The authorities are well aware that in times of stressed supply, by
stopping communities from irrigating with municipal water, they can save
35% of domestic supply. This is demonstrated by restrictions from time to
time. This volume is far greater than Skuifraam can supply! Please peruse
where water goes in the CMC goes, to realize that water must be saved in
the home if any meaningful saving were to be made.
The information in the following two analyses is by courtesy of the Cape
Town City Council, 1991.
ANALYSIS OF URBAN WATER CONSUMPTION
CAPE TOWN
Consumer % Consumption in
municipal area
Water that cannot be accounted for: 21
Spoornet, shipping and harbour: 2
Industrial: 9
Commerce and public use: 6
Municipal purposes: 6
Sporting bodies: 3
Domestic: 53
Total: 100
Domestic Consumption is far and away the highest category, some six times
the amount consumed by the industrial section. It is now important to
analyse where water goes in the home:
Garden 35%
Bathing and Washing 30%
Toilet Flushing 29%
Drinking and cooking 3%
Washing of dishes 3%
Total 100%
This clearly demonstrates that the greatest saving is to irrigate with
phosphate rich (grey) water from 'Bathing and Washing', or to reuse this
water for toilet flushing.
However if grey water, is not used and then thrown away down the sewer from
bathing washing etc., ie it is re-used for irrigation purposes, then it
does not have to be treated in a sewerage treatment works.
Information come recently to hand, is that the CMC are presently completing
the 'Upgrading of Zeekoeivlei Sewerage Treatment Works' at a cost of 50
million Rand to increase the capacity by 50 Mega litres per day. (From 150
to 200 megalitres per day). The authorities at this sewerage treatment
boast that they have not made as much money this year (1999) because of
unusually low rainfall! They actually want more water to purify to boost
their income!
It can therefore be reasoned that: the capital cost of the building of any
augmentation scheme hereafter must include the cost for sewerage treatment.
Perhaps the price then for the building of Skuifraam Dam should in the
estimate for the price of the dam include one million Rand per mega litre
of water stored. This of course does not include any running costs. The
current price to the consumer of the treatment of sewerage is in excess of
one thousand Rand per megalitre.
Please note that although the CMC charge the municipalities per kilolitre
for the treatment of sewerage, the cost for the treatment of this disposed
water is not passed on the consumer per kilolitre. The consumer will simply
receive a globular amount. The account that the man in the street receives
will therefore not reflect how much water they have used and disposed down
the sewer, and be able to glean any saving from sewerage treatment should
he or she try to save water by perhaps by irrigating with grey water.
Should municipalities place restrictions on the use of municipal water for
irrigation, then:
1. There would be ample water for irrigating most gardens from the 'grey
water' ie from bathing and washing. Municipal water could still be used for
watering pots etc.
2. The volume of water required to be treated at the sewerage treatment
works could be reduced by a perhaps as much as 50%.
Why then go to all the trouble of building this massive white elephant 80
kilometres from Cape Town, treat the water to make it potable, only to
pollute the water while using it and dispose (this water) to a lake where
natural and existing water becomes toxic?
Tariffs
Please see the copy of the Bulletin in which the new tariff structure for
Cape Town is shown. The average user can expect an increase of 7.5%, which
is about the same as the inflation rate. This is the price for a scarce
resource?
Professor Bryan Davies is of the opinion that anyone that uses more than 50
kilolitres a month should not expect to pay R5.00 per kilolitre, but R50
per kilolitre! This would discourage abuse of this precious resource.
As a comparison where demand management has brought down the level of
consumption. Authorities in Germany charge in excess of 8 Marks per
kilolitre for water. This translates into R24.00 per kilolitre.
The Water in Wildevoelvlei is Toxic!
This is a serious statement, but what has this to do with the building of
Skuifraam Dam?
The answer actually is simple. This lake has been polluted with phosphate
rich water, released from the sewerage treatment works, causing the growth
of Cyanobacteria (otherwise known as Blue Green Algae), which has turned
toxic, such that should a human (and there are plenty of them living
nearby) drink from the lake, they would be killed.
Please refer to annexure viz Extract from the Environmental Consultants
Professor Bryan Davies and Anja Gassner on the problems associated with
Wildevoelvlei.
Davies and Gassner, who wrote the environmental report on this catastrophe
recommended that:
'it is an imperative that residents in the Noordhoek Valley indeed the
entire area under the control of the CMC, be forced using appropriate
incentives and bye-laws to re-use grey water for irrigation purposes. The
tools for this purpose are already available and have a proven track
record. The strategy will have a dual benefit: 1. Reducing the phosphate
loads reaching the waste water treatment works by as much as 50% , and 2.
Reduction of water demand throughout the area under the control of CMC,
thereby avoiding the need for further costly water augmentation schemes'.
The consulting engineers for the catastrophic Wildevoëlvlei, have surveyed
schools in the area for an assessment to pump water from the sewerage
treatment works for irrigation purposes.. This is to find and alternative
place (choosing irrigation) rather than allowing this phosphate rich water
to flow into the lagoon. This is laudable, but, the volume of water through
their own admission is far too great for all of the fields put together.
However the residents in the area could irrigate their grey water on their
gardens and install other water saving devices, thus reducing the volume
reaching the treatment works by up to 80% in volume.
The above report was tabled at a meeting held a school hall earlier this
year 1999. Speaker after speaker rose to congratulate the authors of the
report. The report was accepted at this meeting yet none of the
recommendations mentioned in this report have yet been implemented by the
CMC.
It must be noted that 'once phosphate rich grey water were removed from
sewerage, and effluent from the treatment works were stripped with ferric
sulphate, the water quality flowing into the lagoon would contain an
acceptable level of phosphate'. Quote by Davies.
At present despite the evidence of the dangers of phosphates, water from
sewerage treatment works at coastal areas are not required to remove
phosphate before allowing water to flow onto estuaries!
Recently the South Municipality spent R500 000.00 to attempt a temporary
cure for the problems at Wildevoelvlei. The Blue Green Algae returned
within months. If some method or other is not used to prevent phosphates
from reaching estuaries, then ultimately to the cost of the building of
Skuifraam, must be added the cost of environmental reports like the one
mentioned above, the dredging and curing lakes like Wildevoelvlei in
future. This is because a large percentage of this water will be polluted
with phosphates and discarded into such lakes. Professor Davies has warned
that the Blue Green Algae may very well turn toxic in other lakes including
Zeekoeivlei and others.
Please see annexure in the Argus of 10 / 11 July depicting the current /
new Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry in a canoe on the Berg River.
The caption correctly quotes that the river has been degraded by pollution
from farms, sewerage and invasive plants. Should the proposed Skuifraam dam
high up in the mountains on the Berg River proceed, then the flow will be
reduced in the river further exacerbating, by concentrating the pollution
from farms, the state of the river. Furthermore, the water from the
proposed dam will force the municipalities to encourage communities to use
more water, to pay for the building of the dam, obviating any demand
management initiatives finally resulting in further pollution from
sewerage. The sewerage will in turn further encourage the growth of
invasive plants. A vicious circle which at all cost should be avoided.
The re-use of grey water is only one of the systems that I developed for my
submission to the Green Trust to achieve my award. Should you wish, I could
give you a personal introduction in how my systems work to save household
water without a change in lifestyle.
Cost of supply management R8.00 per kilolitre
Cost of demand management 22c
In letters, included as Annexure, I wrote to the department of water
Affairs and Forestry, protesting at the building of Skuifraam, amongst
others at the cost of the saving of water against the price of water from
the proposed augmentation scheme.
For the proposed Skuifraam Dam, my estimate of the cost to the consumer for
water supplied, including building cost, purification, repair of leaking
pipes, capital to upgrade and build new sewerage treatment works, the cost
of sewerage treatment, payment of environmentalists to write environmental
reports, and then fixing of problems like Wildevoelvlei is in the region of
R8.00 per kilolitre. Whereas the cost of water saving is not more than 22 c
per kilolitre. These prices are up to date.
Incentives and Bye-laws to reduce consumption will be essential, but
refusal to allow this dam to be built for good environmental and economic
reasons will force the politicians at municipal, CMC and Provincial levels
to discourage communities from wasting water. This would then be a natural
course of action, and allow the Berg River to follow its own biosphere, and
cure Wildevoelvlei and all other coastal as well as inland lakes of their
toxins.
Presently there are literally thousands of little houses being built for
the previously disadvantaged, to house those in informal settlements. Not
one of these houses are being built with water saving devices of any kind.
Would it not be sensible for authorities rather to spend some money on
water saving devices for these people who can not afford these? Something,
even a little sticker saying 'Save Water', costing no more than 20c each,
rather than some huge telephone book type figure on the proposed Skuifraam
Supplement scheme. Once these houses are built, then it will be too costly
to offer water saving devices.
I therefore call on and request the Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism to commission an independent actuarial scientist to do the
calculations of demand management versus supply management, to ascertain
precisely how much water can be made available through either and at what
cost. This should be done before any work commences on this augmentation
scheme.
AIDS
Finally there is the problem of disease. The death rate in Natal is
reported to exceed the birth rate. The Western Cape can not be very far
behind. Should this be the case and our population declines, then who will
pay for Skuifraam? It is appropriate that on the very same day, that of the
deadline for objections to Skuifraam Dam, the Cape Times should have as a
headline: 'Aids the top killer in Africa'. The article in annexed.
Yours faithfully
J.J. WESTGARTH-TAYLOR
Winner of the WWF 1998 Green Trust Award for Water Conservation
ANNEXURE:
Article: Extract from The Cape Argus 15 June.
Extract from the Environmental Consultants Professor Bryan Davies and Anja
Gassner on the problems associated with Wildevoelvlei.
News release from South Municipality dated 7 April 1999.
Letter of appeal against the dam to Minister Kader Asmal dated 17 October 1997
Letter of verification to DWAF dated 1 December 1997.
Copy of the City of Cape Town Bulletin.
Extract from the Argus Dated 10/11 July 1999 depicting a picture of the
Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry in a canoe in the Berg River.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
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
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::