UPDATE AND ADDITONS TO EXISTING
LONG-TERM WATER CONSERVATION AND
WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
WATER & SANITATION
WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Finalised: June 2013
UPDATE AND ADDITIONS TO INITIAL
LONG-TERM WATER CONSERVATION AND
WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
DIRECTOR: WATER AND SANITATION:
PHILEMON MASHOKO
MANAGER WATER DEMAND & STRATEGY:
ZOLILE BASHOLO
HEAD WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT AND
OPERATIONS:
COLLIN MUBADIRO
Report prepared by:
Melissa De Sousa-Alves
Water Demand Management
Integrated Planning,
Strategy & Information
Management
i
DOCUMENT OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE
Please not that this document is to be seen as an update of the previous water conservation
and water demand management (WCWDM) Strategy (2007) this does not supersede or
replace the existing strategy.
This Summary Report should not be read in isolation of the full report of 2007 (Mayco
approved WCWDM Strategy) in order to contextualise the source or foundation of this
update. Furthermore the report should also be read in conjunction with the report,
commissioned by CoCT, developed by Vela VKE which assesses the achievements (linked
to the strategy) made within the period of 2007-2010.
Four year years has transpired since the implementation of the strategy in June 2007. The
City of Cape Town has reviewed the strategy to re-align and focus future initiatives up to
2020/21.
The primary purpose of this document is to:

Redefine the objectives and targets

Review the initial strategy and further project the anticipated savings for the next 10
years

Promote the need for the implementation of WC/WDM initiatives and further re-iterate
why WC/WDM initiatives are considered the first and foremost measures needed to
reduce and sustain water demand
Assess the achievements of the WCWDM strategy initiatives on water demand profile of the
City

Ensure integration of all initiatives that foster water saving and water conservation

Provide a guideline and methodology on the implementation mix of the various initiatives

review the strategy objectives and goals
ii
LIST OF ACRONYMNS
AADD
Annual Average Daily Demand
AU
Automatic Flushing Urinals
AMR
Automated Meter Reading
COCT
Cape Town City Council
CMA
Catchment Management Agency
CMS
Catchment Management Strategy
DMA
District Metered Areas
DWA
Department of Water Affairs
ERP
Enterprise Resource Planning
HWR
High Water Requirement
ILI
Infrastructure Leakage Index
IRP
Integrated Resource Planning
IWRP
Integrated Water Resource Planning
IWRM
Integrated Water Resource Management
KPIs
Key performance indicators
LWR
Low Water Requirement
LOS
Level of Service
NRW
Non-Revenue Water
NWA
National Water Act
NWRS
National Water Resource Strategy
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
PPP
Private Public Partnerships
MIS
Management Information System
SALGA
South African Local Government Association
SWOT
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats
ToR
Terms of Reference
UaW
Unaccounted for water
UWD
Unconstrained Water Demand
WC
Water Conservation
WDM
Water Demand Management
WSA
Water Services authorities
WSDP
Water Services Development Plans
WSI
Water Services institutions
WWTW
Waste Water Treatment Works
iii
LIST OF UNITS
l/s
Litres per second
3
m /s
3
Cubic metres per second
Mm /a
Million cubic metres per annum
Ml/day
Megalitres per day
Kl/month
Kilolitres per month
iv
LIST OF DEFINITIONS
Apparent Losses
Also known as commercial losses - Include unauthorised consumption and
meter inaccuracies
Demand-side
management
Any measure or initiative that will result in the reduction in the expected
Inefficient use of
water
Water used for a specific purpose over and above the accepted and
water usage or water demand.
available best practices and benchmarks, or water used for a purpose
where very little benefit is derived from it.
Integrated Water
Resource Planning
A way of analysing the change in demand and operation of water
institutions that evaluates a variety of supply-side and demand-side
management measures to determine the optimal way of providing Water
Services.
Real Losses
Also known as physical losses – include leakage on transmission and
distribution lines; leakage and overflows at storage tanks; and leakage at
service connections.
Reticulation
management
Any function relating to the management, maintenance and operation of
any system of structures, pipes, valves, pumps, meters or other associated
equipment, including all mains, connection pipes and water installations
that are used or intended to be used in connection with the supply of water.
Retrofitting
The modification, adaptation, or replacement of an existing device, fitting or
appliance.
Supply-side
management
Any measure or initiative that will increase the capacity of a water resource
Unbilled authorised
consumption
Water used for backwashing of filters, flushing of pipes, washing streets,
Unaccounted for
water
Part of the Non-Revenue Water (NRW) that remains after deducting
or water supply system to supply water.
fire fighting, public taps and fountains, parks, etc.
unbilled authorised consumption. UFW or UAW includes Real and
Apparent losses.
Water Institutions
Water institutions include both Water Management Institutions and Water
Services Institutions as defined in the National Water Act and the Water
Services Act respectively.
v
Water Wastage
Water lost through leaks or water usage, which does not result in any
direct benefit to a consumer or user.
Water Conservation
The minimisation of loss or waste, care and protection of Water Resources
and the efficient and effective use of water.
Water Demand
Management
The adaptation and implementation of a strategy by a water institution or
consumer to influence the water demand and usage of water in order to
meet any of the following objectives: economic efficiency, social
development, social equity, environmental protection, sustainability of
water supply and services, and political acceptability.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................ix
1.
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1
2.
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................... 3
3.
CORE BUSINESS OF THE DEPARTMENT .................................................................. 6
4.
VISION AND MISSION FOR WATER AND SANITATION .............................................. 7
5.
STATUS QUO SITUATION OF THE DEPARTMENT (SWOT ANALYSIS)................... 14
6.
STRATEGY REVIEW AND UPDATE ........................................................................... 20
7.
SUCCESSFUL IMPACT OF WDM ............................................................................... 28
8.
ANALYSIS ON WDM/WC ............................................................................................ 32
9.
DEMAND PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................... 49
10. BENEFITS OF WCWDM STRATEGY INITIATIVES ..................................................... 55
11. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 65
ANNEXURE 1: CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGET ...................................................... 69
CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGET ............................................................................... 69
ANNEXURE 2: FIVE YEAR PRESSURE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME ALIGHNED ...... 71
FIVE YEAR PRESSURE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME ALIGHNED TO ......................... 71
PIPE REPLACEMENT PROGRAMME ............................................................................... 71
ANNEXURE 3: FIVE YEAR LEAK DETECTION ................................................................. 75
ANNEXURE 4: FIVE YEAR PIPE REPLACEMENT PROGRAMME .................................... 78
ANNEXURE 5: FIVE YEAR TREATED EFFLUENT UPGRADES ....................................... 98
ANNEXURE 6: FIVE YEAR RETROFIT AND LEAK REPAIR PROGRAMME ................... 105
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Strategy Goals (WCWDM Strategy, 2007) ............................................................................. 20
Table 2: Amended Strategic Goals ....................................................................................................... 22
Table 3: IWA Non-Revenue Water (NRW) Template ........................................................................... 25
Table 4: Non-Revenue Water balance according my IWA balance (2011/12) ..................................... 26
Table 5: Historic Non-Revenue Water Trend ........................................................................................ 27
Table 6: Per Capita Consumption for Domestic Water Use ................................................................. 37
Table 7: Split between domestic indoor and outdoor usage ................................................................. 38
Table 8: Breakdown of Formal Residential End Use ............................................................................ 41
Table 9: Opportunities in Reducing Water Demand ............................................................................. 42
Table 10: Summary of Potential Savings and Activities ....................................................................... 43
Table 11: Goal A and D breakdown into sub goal targets .................................................................... 44
Table 12: COCT combined reticulation and bulk water mains system analysis ................................... 47
Table 13: COCT ILI compared to an international country’s ILI – benchmarking ................................. 48
Table 14: Historical Water Demand Growth ......................................................................................... 50
Table 15: Impact of WC/WDM on Water Demand ................................................................................ 54
Table 16: Impact of Climate Change on Water Demand ...................................................................... 54
Table 17: Actual Expenditure vs. Allocated Budget .............................................................................. 55
Table 18: Future Projects required to offset Water Demand (reduce losses and reduce NRW) .......... 56
Table 19: Budget requirements and associated savings based on two scenarios (100% and 50%
successful implementation of WCWDM)............................................................................................... 57
Table 20: Budget required for sustaining of the savings ....................................................................... 62
Table 21: Additional estimated costs required to increase savings at different percentage levels
(proposed) ............................................................................................................................................. 63
Table 22: 2012/13 Pipe Replacement Budget ...................................................................................... 79
Table 23: 2013/14 Pipe Replacement Budget ...................................................................................... 81
Table 24: 2012/13 Pipe Replacement Budget ...................................................................................... 82
Table 25: 2014/15 Pipe Replacement Budget ...................................................................................... 83
Table 26: 2012/13 Pipe Replacement Budget ...................................................................................... 84
Table 27: 2013/14 Pipe Replacement Budget ...................................................................................... 86
Table 28: 2012/13 Pipe Replacement Budget ...................................................................................... 87
Table 29: 2013/14 Pipe Replacement Budget ...................................................................................... 89
Table 30: 2014/15 Pipe Replacement Budget ...................................................................................... 90
Table 31: 2015/16 Pipe Replacement Budget ...................................................................................... 91
Table 32: 2012/13 Pipe Replacement Budget ...................................................................................... 92
Table 33: 2013/14 Pipe Replacement Budget ...................................................................................... 93
Table 34: 2014/15 Pipe Replacement Budget ...................................................................................... 95
Table 35: 2015/16 Pipe Replacement Budget ...................................................................................... 96
Table 36: 2016/17 Pipe Replacement Budget ...................................................................................... 97
Table 37: Potential New Treated Effluent Users ................................................................................. 104
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Progress from revision of WCWDM strategy (2007/08-2016/17) .......................................... 30
Figure 2: Sectoral Water Usage 2011/12 .............................................................................................. 33
Figure 3: Bar representation of Sectoral Water Usage for 2011/12 ..................................................... 34
Figure 4: Revenue Water vs. Non-Revenue Water 11/12 .................................................................... 34
Figure 5: Non-Revenue Water Primary breakdown 11/12 (based on best estimate) ........................... 35
Figure 6: Non-Revenue Water Secondary breakdown 11/12 (based on best estimate) ...................... 35
Figure 7: Informal vs. Formal per Capita Consumption ....................................................................... 40
Figure 8: Unconstrained Water Demand vs. Actual Water Demand Volume ....................................... 49
Figure 9: Water Demand Chart ............................................................................................................. 50
Figure 10: Impact of WCWDM on LWR and HWR curve includes impact of climate change on system
yield (100% success) ............................................................................................................................ 52
Figure 11: Impact of WCWDM on LWR and HWR curve includes impact of climate change on system
yield (50% success) .............................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 12: Year on Year Potential Savings to be achieved based on planned projects (proposed) .... 58
Figure 13: Cumulative Savings vs. five year WDM and Operations projected budget ......................... 59
Figure 14: Initial capital investment required to sustain the savings projected ..................................... 60
Figure 15: Operating Costs required to sustain the year on year savings projected (proposed) ......... 61
ix
1. INTRODUCTION
The availability of adequate Water Resources and the related bulk water and wastewater
infrastructure to meet the growing water demand in the City of Cape Town (COCT) is a
limiting constraint to the social up-liftment and economic prosperity of the city. As early as
1995, City of Cape Town committed itself to a 10% saving on the historical demand growth
of 4 % per annum. An Integrated Water Resource Planning (IWRP) study carried out in 2001
also indicated that various Water Demand Management and Water Conservation
(WC/WDM) initiatives are the most feasible water augmentation options to meet the growing
water demand for the city.
In 2001 COCT developed a WC/WDM policy and strategy based on the outcome of the
IWRP study. A number of WC/WDM projects were implemented and some of the projects
such as the Khayelitsha Pressure Management project were very successful and received
wide recognition. The implementation of the strategy was however not sustainable and due
to numerous institutional challenges the initial commitment and resources to WC/WDM were
significantly reduced during 2003, 2004 and again during 2006. This revised WC/WDM
strategy seeks to overcome these challenges, build on experience gained and adapt to the
city’s approach in light of current socio-political, environmental and urban management
imperatives.
The purpose of the WC/WDM strategy is to ensure the long-term balance between
available Water Resources and water demand, to postpone the need for expensive capital
infrastructure projects for as long as it is economically viable and to minimise water wastage.
1
1.1.
Need for WC/WDM
DWA has recognised WDM initiatives as the first and foremost measures to reduce and
sustain water demand.
The need of a WC/WDM at COCT is not limited to the immediate water resource shortages
and includes the following:
a)
Reconciling supply and future demand. The IWRP study and the Reconciliation strategy
had clearly indicated that WC/WDM measures are the most feasible options for
reconciling supply and future demand.
b)
Water resource and environmental protection. Through WC/WDM, the environment can
be protected by limiting the water abstracted from rivers and also reducing the pollution
discharged through the wastewater system and reducing the pollution from
contaminating the water supply.
c)
Financial viability of the Water Services business. WC/WDM can contribute significantly
to ensuring the financial viability of water service business in the COCT in the following
ways:

Reducing the direct distribution operating and treatment costs by reducing non-revenue
demand

Reducing the operating cost of revenue demand (not significant)

Increasing income from consumers through affordable tariffs

Reducing the bad debt costs by reducing wastage and inefficient consumption by nonpaying consumers Postponing the need for new capital infrastructure

Energy costs reduction due to reduced demand; More water connections can be made
for revenue generation
2
2. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
This WC/WDM strategy supports the key principles embodied and complies with the relevant
provisions of both the National Water and Water Services Acts. The following is a list of all
the relevant national legislations and policies regarding WC/WDM.
2.1.
National Water Act
The National Water Act adopts water conservation as a key concept. Conservation appears
more than twenty times throughout the Act. The following are the most significant clauses
regarding WC/WDM in the National Water Act.
Clause 8 makes water conservation one of the requirements of a catchment management
strategy.
“(1) A catchment management agency contemplated in Chapter 7 must, by notice in the
Gazette, establish a catchment management strategy for the protection, use, development,
conservation, management and control of Water Resources within its water management
area.”
Clause 29 makes water conservation one of the conditions associated with authorisation of
licences.
“(1) A responsible authority may attach conditions to every general authorisation or licence (a) relating to the protection of
-
the water resource in question;
-
the stream flow regime; and
-
- other existing and potential water users;
(b) relating to water management by ..specifying management practices and general requirements for any water use, including
water conservation measures;”
Clause 56 specifies that the cost of water conservation can be included in the pricing
strategy.
“(1) The Minister may, with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, from time to time by
notice in the Gazette, establish a pricing strategy for charges for any water use within the
framework of existing relevant government policy.
(2) The pricing strategy may contain a strategy for setting water use charges 3
(a) for funding water resource management, including the related costs of - ……….
(iv) water resource protection, including the discharge of waste and the protection of the
Reserve; and
(v) water conservation;”
Schedule 3 Clause 6 specifies that the catchment management agency may require users to
undertake water conservation measures.
“(1) If a catchment management agency on reasonable grounds believes that a water
shortage exists or is about to occur within an area it may, despite anything to the contrary in
any authorisation, by notice in the Gazette or by written notice to each of the water users in
the area who are likely to be affected (i) Limit or prohibit the use of water;
(ii) Require any person to release stored water under that person's control;
(iii) Prohibit the use of any waterworks’; and
(iv) Require specified water conservation measures to be taken.”
2.2.
Water Services Act
The following clauses in the Water Service Act relate directly to WC/WDM:
Clause 2 (j) states that one of the main objectives of the Act is:
“the promotion of effective water resource management and conservation”
Clause 4 (2) requires that one of the conditions set by the Water Services provider
(c) “Must provide for(vi) measures to promote water conservation and water demand management”
Clause 11 specifies the duty of water service authorities to provide access to Water
Services.
4
(1) “Every Water Services authority has a duty to all consumers or potential consumers in its
area of jurisdiction to progressively ensure efficient, affordable, economical and sustainable
access to Water Services.”
It specifies that this duty is subject to:
(2) (e) “the duty to conserve Water Resources”
Clause 13 specifies the contents of a draft Water Services development plan. Clause (j)
specifies the following:
(j) “of existing and proposed water conservation, recycling and environmental protection
measures”
2.3.
Water Services Act regulations
The following clauses in the Regulations under the Water Service Act relate directly to
WC/WDM:
Clause 10 (1) “ A Water Services authority must include a Water Services audit in its annual
report on the implementation of its Water Services development plan required in terms of
section 18 (1) of the Act.”
Clause 11 (1) Within two years of the promulgation of these regulations, a Water Services
institution must every month- “Determine the quantity of unaccounted for water ……”
Clause 12 “ A Water Services institution must repair any major, visible or reported leak in its
Water Services system within 48 hours of becoming aware thereof.”
Clause 13 “ A Water Services institution must within two years …fit a suitable water volume
measuring device or volume controlling device to all user connections provided with water
supply services that are existing at the time of commencement of these regulations”
Clause 15 “A Water Services institution must design and maintain every water reticulation
system installed after promulgation of these regulations to operate below a maximum
pressure of 900 kpa.”
5
3. CORE BUSINESS OF THE DEPARTMENT
The core business of the Water and Sanitation Department is to equitably and efficiently
provide access to Water and Sanitation Services to all citizens of the City in a sustainable,
safe, reliable, environmentally friendly and financially viable way observing the dictates of
sound good governance principles.
6
4. VISION AND MISSION FOR WATER AND SANITATION
The vision of Water and Sanitation Services in Cape Town is:
4.1.
Vision Statement
VISION STATEMENT
To be a beacon in Africa for the provision of Water and Sanitation services
4.2.
Mission Statement
MISSION STATEMENT
We pledge to achieve our vision by creating a centre of excellence in Water and Sanitation Department through:

Optimizing resources

Implementing environmentally-sustainable interventions

Continuous improvement and knowledge management

Good governance

Customer satisfaction and excellent stakeholder relationships
Values

Integrity: We maintain the highest level of ethics and fairness in our interaction with each other, our
customers and other stakeholders.

Respect: We respect each other’s opinion, beliefs, position and contribution to the Department including
those of our customers and other stakeholders. All employees are equal in their contributions.

Customer focus: We meet customers’ needs by providing excellent service, optimal product performance
and efficient support system. Our customers are the reason for our existence. The environment is our silent
customer who shall receive an equal share of our services.

Trust: Our business model and relationship is based on trust. A “Yes” shall mean a Yes and a “No” shall
mean a No. Our common purpose, integrity and honesty shall constrain us to have trust in each other. Trust
shall be felt, experienced, lived and seen in our Departmental family.

Transparency: We operate safely, openly, honestly and with care for the environment and the community.
Transparency shall be defined by the customers and stakeholders we serve.

Professional: We use the right skills or competencies to find appropriate solutions enriched with
compassion, innovation, sustainability, cost-effectiveness, accountability and excellence.
7
4.3.
Business Focus Areas
The Water and Sanitation department has adopted the framework for the attributes of
effective water and wastewater utility management developed by the American Water Works
Association (AWWA) as a balanced scorecard for its business management. The framework
covers all aspects of the Water and Sanitation business necessary to position the
department to achieving and contributing effectively and efficiently to the achievement of the
City vision. The following are the ten attributes that have been adopted:
a)
Product Quality: looks at the ability of the department to meet the potable water
quality standards licence conditions, the Department of Water Affairs general
wastewater effluent standards, environmental management requirements and
ecological needs.
b)
Customer Satisfaction:
looks at the ability of the department to provide basic
services to all residents in the City, eradication of sanitation backlogs, provision of
affordable service, meeting Service Charter standards, level of service and standard
of service. The department seeks to provide services to backyarders on a direct
basis in agreement with the landowners such as the Directorate of Human
Settlements and private household owners.
c)
Employee and Leadership Development:
develop and
the department has a challenge to
retain its employees and ensure high levels of motivation among
employees. This challenge demands that the department must ensure adequate
staffing levels, skills retention, succession planning and individual development of
employees so that their progression into management or a specialist function is
supported adequately.
d)
Operational Optimisation:
business
this attribute forces the department to review its
processes to ensure timely on-going cost-effective, reliable and
sustainable service provision in all its operations. The department is challenged to
minimise resource utilisation, losses and take advantage of technological
advancement to better its efficiency levels in providing water and sanitation services.
8
e)
Financial Viability: the focus is for the department to improve its collection ratios
and ensure that the tariffs, charges or any levies are total cost-recovering in nature.
In addition there is a need to reduce high debt levels and improve the willingness to
pay by its consumers. The investment into infrastructure must also be well-timed,
synchronized with mutual projects and appropriate funding explored to ensure a good
return on investment. The cost of capital must be minimised and the challenge is
how to achieve this given the consolidated nature of the investment decisions in the
City. The department must also ensure effective utilisation and timely maintenance
of its assets to sustain revenue growth levels that is in sympathy to the consumer
base growth.
f)
Infrastructure Stability:
this business attribute requires the department to
understand when to create and dispose of an asset, the
condition of its assets,
lifecycle costs, the associated costs to be incurred in unlocking asset value, to
sustain the business. The department must ensure timely maintenance,
rehabilitation, replacement and upgrading of existing infrastructure.
costs of the assets must be well
understood
developed. The department is currently
and
asset
repair,
The lifecycle
management
plans
developing asset management plans to
be integrated into the SAP system modules and this process is a huge challenge that
requires time and resources to complete.
g)
Operational Resilience: this business focus area requires the department to ensure
adequate risk management for its water and wastewater business. To this end the
department has developed the draft Wastewater Risk Abatement Plan and the draft
Water Safety Plan and the Department of Water Affairs’ requirements of these plans
are increasingly becoming stringent.
The establishment of operational tolerance
levels that ensures adequate management of the legal, regulatory, financial,
environmental, safety, and national disaster risks are still to be finalised. Servitude
Encroachment is a risk to the
department
that
affects
the
operational
resilience of its service provision value chain.
9
h)
Community Sustainability: this focus area ensures infrastructure investment led
job creation for communities in the City of Cape Town. This will assist in improving
the disposable income of households and enhance their ability to pay for water and
sanitation services. The department must ensure that its operations, services output
and
by-products such as sludge and wastewater effluent do not harm the
environment and
compromise community health.
Infrastructure Management
and Operations must be managed to ensure efficient utilisation of water resources,
energy and promote economic vitality with minimum impact on the environment.
Efforts should therefore be made to ensure investments are green and climate
change impact is managed.
i)
Water Resource Adequacy: as it is, this business attribute focuses on the ability of
the department to ensure security of water supply. The department has a challenge
to ensure that by 2017 a new source of water supply to the City will have been
developed either directly by the
department or through Department of Water
Affairs. The department has to keep pace with future customer needs for basic
services and economic expansion through long term resource planning, long term
demand analysis and conservation of the existing resources.
j)
Stakeholder Management: this attribute requires the department to identify the
representatives of various stakeholders and ensure adequate engagement in issues
that affect them. The political leadership and interest group representation in Informal
Settlements is a challenge for the department in its quest to eradicate service
backlogs.
The department must also ensure adequate engagement with the
Department of Water Affairs, the Provincial Government and other directorates in
the City for the purpose of optimising investments into improvement programs and
risk management.
10
Out of the business focus areas described above, the Water and Sanitation Department has
identified the following as critical challenges that constitute the risks to the business and are
clustered into four categories:
(a) Financial viability

Collection ratio and willingness to pay for services

Metering and billing

Ensuring full cost recovery and acceptability of the tariffs by the consumers

Reduction in unaccounted for water

High financial requirements

High cost of doing business

High debt due to non-payment
(b) Customer satisfaction

Meeting Service Charter standards

Provision of basic services to Informal Settlements and Backyarders

Availability of services for infrastructure expansion

Appropriate service standards and level of service

Eradication of sanitation backlogs

Provision of affordable service
(c) Water Resource Academy

Achieve water demand targets through intensified WDM strategy

Development of additional water sources

Treated effluent re-use and its acceptance

Provision of adequate infrastructure to meet City development/growth needs
(d) Employee development (internal)
 Establish effective institutional arrangement
 Sufficient staff resourcing, skills retention and development
 Increasing productivity, efficiency and effectiveness in the operations of the business
(e) Operational Optimisation
 ISO 9000 certification
 ISO 17025 laboratory certification
 Processes re-engineering and right-sizing of the department
11
(f) Product quality
 Meeting the licence conditions for Wastewater Treatment Works
 Meeting the amended SANS 241 standards
(g) Operational Resilience
 Water Safety Plan development;
 Wastewater Risk Abatement Plan
 Servitude enhancement
 Developing and managing the Risk Register
 Asset Management
12
The strategies to face these challenges are dealt with where appropriate under the following
sections. Water and Sanitation’s Strategic objectives are as follows:
Strategic Objectives
To implement ISO 9001 for all our services in the next five years
To achieve Green Drop status for 60% of the waste water treatment plants (i.e. 18 plants)
To achieve 95% waste water effluent quality
To ensure the presence and dominance in Africa of the water-, wastewater- and air pollution-testing
services
To reduce unaccounted for water to 16% in the next five years
To provide basic or emergency sanitation services to all residents of the city
To provide basic water to all residents in the city
To increase productivity levels by 15%
To achieve 90% customer satisfaction levels in all our services
To develop Asset Management Plans for the Department
To be the reference City for water matters in the country
To grow the training school and achieve SETA accreditation for the training modules(e.g. process
controllers, artisans)
To minimise river systems pollution by reducing sewage overflows by 20%
To improve revenue collection to 96%
To construct an office block for the department
To be information efficient
To increase security of supply for the bulk water supply system: percentage potable water
production capacity of peak week demand to120%
To increase the effluent re-use by 15% of potable demand
To roll out automation and remote control pilots on treatments and pump stations
Target
2015/16
2015/16
2015/16
2015/16
2015/16
2015/16
2015/16
2015/16
2015/16
2012/13
2015/16
2012/13
2015/16
2015/16
2015/16
2012/13
2016/17
2015/16
2014/15
13
5. STATUS QUO SITUATION OF THE DEPARTMENT (SWOT ANALYSIS)
It is necessary to carry out a situation analysis that identifies the constraints and
opportunities in implementing WC/WDM. This is necessary in order to ensure that the
strategy developed can be implemented successfully.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Internal Factors
Opportunity
Threats
External Factors
-
+
STRENGTHS
- High levels of technical staff
- Integrated metering and billing system
- Adopting Integrated Resource Planning
- Previous WCWDM programmes
- Alignment of WC/WDM programmes and
activities
- Alignment of WCWDM programmes to
electricity - efficiency campaigns
- Budget allocation
- Political buy-in
- Water Bylaw
WEAKNESSES
Current organisational structures hinders
holistic water management by entrenching
fragmented policy, planning and budgeting
approaches
Short-term financial planning
Combined authority and provider
Lack of knowledge of consumer needs and
water usage patterns
Consumers lack understanding of the need to
implement water conservation
Lack of sufficient numbers of qualified
experienced technical staff within WDM section
SWOT
OPPORTUNITIES
Possibility of securing external funding from a
range of institutions and donors
Establishment of PPP’s geared around
elimination of water wastage
Delayed infrastructure investment and energy
savings leading to reduced water costs
Increased efficiency in the use and allocation of
water whilst promoting social equity
THREATS
Impact of debtors collection ratio on Capital and
Operating budgets
Aging infrastructure
Low level of knowledge and awareness of the
need and benefits of water conservation
amongst the public
Community acceptance/behaviour change
14
STRENGTHS
a. High levels of technical capability and competence: COCT currently still has a number of
qualified officials that have adequate expertise in the various fields of WC/WDM. The
challenge is to make sure that the existing capacity and competence is adequately
utilised.
b. Integrated metering and billing system: COCT has an integrated metering and billing
system of most water consumers. It is estimated that more than 90% of consumers have
a meter and are on the COCT’s integrated billing system. With the appropriate
management information systems, the monthly meters readings can be an instrumental
tool for WC/WDM.
c. Adopting IRP: The City of Cape Town has adopted the principles of Integrated
Resource Planning (IRP) and carried out a comprehensive study linked to this. The study
illustrates and motivates clearly the advantages of various WC/WDM measures over
traditional supply augmentation options. This concept has been nationally and
internationally accepted as being fundamental to the sustainability of the available water
resource
d. Previous WC/WDM programmes and activities: The strategy should utilise the
success and impact of the previous WC/WDM activities and build on them. Some of the
key initiatives that should be continued are the communication campaign, school
education, and pressure-reducing programme, expanding the existing treated effluent
distribution network, leak repair programme on private property and installation of water
management devices.
e. Alignment of WC/WDM programmes to electricity efficiency campaign: COCT has
developed an electricity efficiency programme. Aligning the two campaigns can reduce
implementation costs and result in greater awareness by consumers.
15
f.
Budget allocation: The city of Cape Town water & sanitation department has been
allocated a budget (though not sufficient) to undertake many of the goals and objectives
of WDM and strategy.
g. Political Buy-in: The city of Cape Town is fortunate that the executive and political
structures with the metro have accepted the WDM strategy goals and initiatives and
support these fully.
h. Water Bylaw: The basic principles which underpin the water restrictions were recently
promulgated as part of the Water Bylaw under schedule 1. This in-effect meant that what
was once punitive during the restriction period now became law and can be enforced
(Schedule 1).
WEAKNESS
a. Current organisational structure arguably hinders holistic water management, by
entrenching fragmented policy, planning and budgeting approaches. Some of the
institutional constraints are as follows:
i.
Lack of an efficient and effective asset management programme, which limits
proactive maintenance on all infrastructures thereby invariably incurring unnecessary
expenditure, which could have been allocated elsewhere.
ii.
Even though knowledge management has been centralised there is still opposition
from within the different water branches to supply and make information available to a
centralised data base.
iii.
Lack of adequate coordination between the various departments of COCT.
iv.
Lack of uniformity in the water department resulting from the merging of various local
authorities into one metro.
b. Short-term financial planning: The opportunities of WC/WDM are apparent if a 5 or 10year financial assessment is carried out. There is an existing 10 year financial plan
however approval is only made on the finance planned for the current year plus an
additional 2 years. The latter makes it difficult to motivate WC/WDM based on financial
considerations.
16
c. Combined authority and provider: The lack of separation of the authority and provider
functions within COCT can be a constraint to the implementation of WC/WDM for the
following reasons:
i.
Alternative city objectives may influence the allocation of budget on WC/WDM
ii.
Alternative city objectives may influence the approval of various WC/WDM projects.
iii.
Performance criteria and benchmarks for water service delivery may not be
adequately pursued
iv.
Responsibility and accountability for performance may not be clearly identified
d. Lack of knowledge and understanding of consumers’ needs and water usage
patterns: There is a lack of knowledge on the consumers’ needs and water use patterns,
which may limit the ability to reduce consumer demand. This is due to the lack of
adequate management information systems, adequate consumer interaction, and lack of
research.
e. The consumers lack understanding of the need to implement water conservation: One
of the greatest challenges face by all MLC’s and metros across South Africa is the
aspect of behavioural change of consumers. Where there are no consequence to poor
water usage consumers tend to ignore the importance of saving water (e.g. fixing visible
leaks, irrigating in the heat of the day, no pool covers, ignoring basic principles contained
within the water bylaw.
f.
Lack of Sufficient numbers of qualified experienced technical staff within WDM
section: Keep knowledge in house/ limited staff compared to interventions citywide.
There is a need to analyse data, including the positive impact of all projects. Project
control measures/payback periods/ post project analysis of savings (are we still saving a
year or two down the line).
Assessing and implementing new technologies (research) to improve efficiency of
service delivery requires a dedicated technical team and the same applies to leak
detection teams
17
OPPORTUNITIES
a. Possibility of securing external funding from a range of institutions and donors:
There are a number of examples in S.A. where large industries have sponsored various
WC/WDM initiatives by Councils in order to ensure a more secure supply of water. This
idea can be expanded considerably and can be utilised to fund a number of the
proposed WC/WDM initiatives. There are also a number of foreign programmes that offer
funding opportunities. Some examples are the UN habitat programme and the African
Cities Water Conservation programme.
b. Establishment of PPP’s geared around elimination of water wastage: There are a
number of private companies that are willing to enter into concessions or joint
management contracts to manage Water Services delivery or specific key performance
indicators such as the reduction of non-revenue demand.
c. Delayed infrastructure investment and energy savings leading to reduced water
costs: COCT’s infrastructure requirements for water supply are significant. WC/WDM
can result in significant financial benefits by postponing the need for many of the
infrastructure requirements, as well as reduce some of the operating costs including
energy savings.
d. Increased efficiency in the use and allocation of water whilst promoting social
equity: Increased efficiency will make way for a more equitable distribution of Water
Resources to people without services.
THREATS
a. Impact of Debtors collection ratio on Capital and Operating Budget: If the debtor’s
collection ratio is lower than targeted it will impact on the amount available for water and
sanitation operations and ultimately WDM/WC.
b. Perceived general low profile of demand management activities in that it is seen as
a programme/project with a start and an end date and not as a way of life WC/WDM
measures are commonly perceived only as drought relief mechanisms
c. Finalisation of organisational transformation.
18
d. Aging infrastructure: As the infrastructure becomes older with each passing year, the
more leakages and pipe bursts occur, increasing the level of water wastage. This is
linked to the lack of an efficient and effective AMP.
e. Low level of knowledge and awareness of the need and benefits of Water
Conservation amongst the public: There is a general public perception that WC/WDM is
a punitive concept and is only acceptable during a time of drought. The city of Cape
Town receives the bulk of its rain during the winter season thereby allowing the dams to
fill though often not to full capacity. The community however, associate the dam capacity
with the available water not understanding that the water in the dams is not only for a
certain period but to carry us through to the ensuing years as well as cater for
agriculture.
CHALLENGES

Determining Actual Savings – No formal control measure exists to quantify impact of
certain initiatives.

When people know they are using a water conservation device they tend to use the
device longer. This increased use may have a detrimental effect on the expected savings
(Campbell et al., 2004).

Obtaining significant research to validate some of the assumptions made.

No understanding of the problem by role-players

Lack of capacity (insufficiently training staff)

Inadequate funding to replace infrastructure

Lack of management commitment (prioritisation)

Weak enabling environment and performance incentives (community liaison)
19
6. STRATEGY REVIEW AND UPDATE
6.1. Background: Why update the strategy?
The COCT has committed itself to the implementation of the WC/WDM strategy and targets
saving approximately 90 million m3 /annum (target as per the WCWDM Strategy, based on
certain assumptions which were then interrogated as part of the assessment 2010) by
2016/17. After 5 years of implementation the City of Cape Town has made an undertaken to
assess the strategy objectives and its impact (WCWDM Strategy, 2007). COCT however
chose to assess the strategy within the 3rd year of implementation in order to keep ahead of
any factors which may impact the success of the implementation of the strategy. Vela VKE
has done an extensive study which involved assessing the savings over the past three years
(2007 -2010).
It is of vital importance that the impact of the strategy on water demand and conservation
must be measured and it must be established whether its original goals are being achieved.
The WC/WDM strategy is a critical component in the future planning of the Western Cape
Water Supply System and COCT understands the importance of monitoring the success of
the Strategy and reporting to the Department of Water Affairs.
The WC/WDM Strategy (2007) identified and stated 5 goals that the strategy will endeavour
to achieve over the ensuing ten years (up until 2016/17). These five goals consist of both
quantitative and qualitative techniques which both have a direct and indirect impact on the
water demand.
Table 1: Strategy Goals (WCWDM Strategy, 2007)
Quantitative
Implementation
Goal A
Goal B
Goal E
COCT must reduce and maintain NRW to below 15% of the total average demand and within
accepted international benchmarks.
Water wastage by consumers to be reduced and maintained below 2% of the total demand by
2012 and most consumers must achieve water efficiency benchmarks by 2016.
Reduce projected potable water demand to an average growth rate of no more than 1% p.a. for
the next 10 years and conserve CT water resources
Ensure by 2009 and maintain on-going effective management systems and implement IWRP in
Qualitative
Action Plan
Goal C
all decisions regarding augmentation, bulk infrastructure development and water efficiency
projects.
Goal D
COCT must adopt WC/WDM as one of the key delivery strategies and must give priority to its
implementation and ensure an on-going enabling environment.
20
The purpose of the review is to:
-
Verify estimated impact of WCWDM, as indicated within the initial strategy (2007),
against actual impact of WCWDM.
-
The base figures used needed to be validated against various research materials in
order to develop an increased confidence in the assumption made.
-
To further project the savings based on the projects to be implemented over the next 10
years.
6.2. Findings of the Assessment

Base Data
Various assumptions/estimates made needed to be reconfirmed with international norms
and best practices. Some of the assumptions could not be validated and in the new updated
strategy, these assumptions were brought forward until references could be obtained.

Strategy Targets and Goals
The five strategy goals as initially developed in the WCWDM, 2007, was improved to include
additional and revised strategic goals. Some of the targets were also altered in order to realign with current and forecasted COCT growth trends.
Six goals have been identified, Goals A and D each having sub-goals and represent the
overall policy.
Goals, A, D and E relate to the implementation objectives that will result in the direct
reduction of water demand. Thirteen implementation objectives have been developed under
the various goals. These objectives are illustrated in Table 2 below.
Goal A: COCT must by 2015/16 reduce and maintain the WATER LOSSES to below
15% of the total average demand and within accepted international benchmarks.
Goal A has two additional sub-goals. Refer to Table 2 for detailed outline. Each
sub-goal will be measured in in order to better understand where the greater
water losses are and to better assess whether WDM initiatives are being effective
in the area in which it is meant to impact.
21
Goal D: COCT must by 2020 reduce and maintain the NON-REVENUE WATER to
below 20% of the total average demand and within accepted international
benchmarks (as described in Section 8.2). Goal A and Goal D represent similar
sub-goals except Goal D focuses on revenue losses both in authorised unbilled
consumption, debts written off and water losses.
Goal E: Reduce the projected potable water demand to an average growth rate of
no more than 2 % p.a. for the next 10 years and conserve Cape Town’s Water
Resources. Goal E previously stated that potable water demand will be reduced to
an average growth rate of no more than 1% p.a. for the next 10 years. By
evaluating previous demand growth trends it became evident that this target
needed to be altered in order to provide a more realistic achievable outcome. Goal
B, as stated in Table 1 has been combined with Goal E as its description also
assist in achieving the overall target as set out by Goal E. Also, the initial Goal B
related to the Reduction of Consumer Wastage to below 2%. This target proved to
be ineffective as it was not possible to accurately measure consumer wastage
against the target.
Table 2: Amended Strategic Goals
Goal
Target
A
Water Losses (unaccounted for water) < 15% by 2015/16
D

Apparent Losses (Unbilled Unauthorised
Consumption)

Real Losses
Quantitative
NRW < 20%
Quantitative

Unbilled Authorised Consumption

Apparent Losses (Unbilled Unauthorised
Consumption)

Real Losses
E
Demand Growth < 2 %
Quantitative
B
On-going
effective
implementation of IWRP
and
Qualitative
C
Mobilise resources according to the Water Conservation
and Water Demand Management Strategy.
Qualitative
management
systems
22
The enabling action plan consists of two goals. Goal B relates mainly to ensuring adequate
information and Goal C relates mainly to ensuring adequate resources and capacity to
implement WC/WDM.
Goal B: Ensure an on-going effective management systems and implementation
of IWRP. Goal B was previously listed as Goal C.
Goal C: Mobilise resources according to the Water Conservation and Water
Demand Management Strategy. Goal C was previously listed as Goal D. It has
been altered to re-iterate the importance of resources for the effective and
efficient implementation of WC/WDM initiatives.
23
6.3.
Reporting on Non-Revenue Water (NRW)
Non-Revenue Water (NRW) is defined as the volume of water used by the municipality for
which no income is received where revenue water includes Free Basic water which is billed
at a zero rate (Wegelin et al).
In order to comply with international standards, the City of Cape Town will be displaying their
water balance and water losses information using the International Water Association (IWA)
standard table. This table clearly indicates the measured or estimated quantities. The term
Unaccounted for Water (UAW) is used to indicate the amount of water lost in a water
distribution system. Based on research the term UAW is too open in the sense that it can
easily be manipulated based on the various assumptions used in its calculation. It is
recommended that it be changed to Non-Revenue Water (NRW). NRW is comprised of the
volume of water “lost” by the municipality and volume of water which cannot be billed.
(B) Authorised Consumption (or Accounted Water or AW): Is the volume of metered and
unmetered water used by registered customers. It is calculated as follows:
‘System Input’ – (‘Water Losses’)
(C) Water Losses (also known as unaccounted for water (UAW)): The volume of water lost
through the system as either apparent or real losses. It is calculated as follows:
‘(A) System Input’ – (‘(B) Authorised Consumption’ or ‘Accounted for Water’)
(D) Billed Authorised Consumption: The volume of authorised consumption which is billed
and paid for and includes Free Basic Water which is billed at a zero rate. This comprises of:
•
Billed Metered Consumption – Obtained from billing data (SAP)
•
Billed Unmetered consumption – Value is Zero (Not applicable) as the City of Cape
Town does not use flat rates
(E) Unbilled authorised consumption: The volume of authorised water consumed that is not
billed or paid for. This includes
•
(J) unbilled metered consumption for informal settlements and estimated unbilled
metered for formal developments
•
(K) unmetered consumption for formal developments
These consumptions for formal households are calculated as follows:
•
(J) Meter formal households: No. of Households x 30kl/month (estimate)
•
(K) Unmetered formal households: No. of Households x 35kl/month (estimate)
24
•
*No. of Households – obtained from billing section
(F) Apparent losses: Losses due to theft, illegal use or meter inaccuracies.

Meter Inaccuracies = assumed 6% of Volume of Water Supplied to Reticulation

Illegal use or Theft = assumed 1% of System Input
(G) Real losses: Physical water losses from the pressurised system up the point of customer
use. It is calculated as follows:
‘System Input’ – (‘Authorised Consumption’ + ‘Apparent Losses’)
Real losses are comprised of the following:
•
(N) Leakage on transmission and distribution mains:
Calculated as ‘Real Losses’ – (Leakage on Overflows at storage tanks +
Leakage on service connections)
•
(O) Leakage Overflows at storage tanks: Input value provided by Bulk water
•
(P) Leakage on Service connections up to point of customer meter:
In South Africa, losses associated with service connections after the street
edge can normally be considered as insignificant (Mc Kenzie, Lambert AO,
JE Kock & Mtshweni, 2002).
Table 3: IWA Non-Revenue Water (NRW) Template
(B)
Authorised
(A)
Sy stem Input
(C)
Losses
(U AW)
(D)
Billed
(E)
U nbilled
(F)
Apparent
Losses
(H) metered
(I) U nmetered
(zero)
(J) M etered
(K) U nmetered
(L) U nauthorised
(M) M eter
Inaccuracies
(N) M ains
(G)
Real Losses
(Q)
Rev enue
Water
(R)
N on
Rev enue
Water
(O) Storage
(P) C onnections
Table 4 represents the City of Cape Towns Status on Non-revenue Water
25
Table 4: Non-Revenue Water balance according my IWA balance (2011/12)
Billed metered
Authorised
Billed
consumption
Authorised
719.18
Revenue Water
Consumption
Ml/day
719.18
719.18
Billed unmetered
Ml/day
Ml/day
consumption
0 Ml/day
Consumption
Unbilled Metered
765.75
Ml/day
Unbilled
Authorised
Consumption
46.57
Ml/day
Consumption
37.08
Ml/day
Unbilled Unmetered
Consumption
9.49
Ml/day
System
Unauthorised
Volume
Consumption
Input
904.22
Apparent
9.04
Losses
Ml/day
57.57
Customer Meter
Ml/day
Inaccuracies
Ml/day
48.52
Water Losses
Ml/day
138.48
Leakage on
Ml/day
Transmission and
Non-Revenue
Water
185.04
Ml/day
(20.5% of Input
Volume)
Distribution Mains
80.03
(15.3% of Input
Volume)
Real Losses
80.91
Ml/day
Ml/day
Leakage on Overflows
at Storage Tanks
0.88
Ml/day
Leakage on Service
Connections up to point
of customer meter
Negligible
Source: Revenue; Bulk Water and Reticulation; UAW Balance (USPC Report 11/12)
26
Note: The calculation of the IWA water balance was performed using the best available
information at present and in some cases estimation based on input from officials within
Water and Sanitation Department. Therefore the accuracy of the IWA water balance can still
be improved.
Table 5: Historic Non-Revenue Water Trend
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/2011
2011/12
2012/13*
Total System Input
(kl)
315 555 297
325 691 626
331 895 445
336 271 703
330 040 938
217 922 373
Non- revenue water
(kl)
63 809 479
75 901 218
84 107 521
78 159 401
67 541 133
47 278 113
Non – revenue
water (%)
20.20%
23.30%
25.30%
23.20%
20.50%
19.8%
Non – Revenue
water (R)
R 151 228 465
R 196 584 155
R 217 838 479
R 222 754 293
R 203 974 222
R 152 235 524
Number of metered
connections
Not available
Not available
Not available
617 323
623 191
627 589
Water Loss (kl)
63 809 479
73 595 268
78 496 376
69 549 908
50 543 518
36 035 425
Water loss (%)
20.20%
22.60%
23.70%
20.70%
15.30%
14.3%
Water loss (R)
R 151 228 465
R 190 611 744
R 203 305 614
R 198 217 238
R 152 641 424
R 116 034 069
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
25 485 001
16 485 824
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
R 76 964 703
R 53 084 353
Material financial
#
losses (kl)
Material financial
#
losses (R)
*As at April 2013
Note: Expressing NRW as a percentage of the system input is not encouraged as it can be
misleading as percentage figures are strongly influenced by the consumption.
Previous trends, before 2010/11, showed steady increase in the overall NRW. One of the
objectives of the strategy was to have a system in place which assesses the overall water
balance.
Possible reasons for improved NRW value: The City of Cape Town has been undertaking
the following key interventions:
Bulk Water System:

Bulk Water Meter Audits/ Meter Replacement/ Meter verification
Reticulation System:

Extensive implementation of Pressure Management
27

Treated Effluent Reuse (increased users)

Dysfunctional consumer meters replaced

Water meters refixed/ relocated

Training of Caretakers of schools (fix leaks)

Integrated leaks repair programs

WDM devices (improved revenue collection)

Increased repair of leaks on water connections
Additionally, downward trend in burst water mains (stats available from USPC Report) as a
result of:

Increased water mains relays/replacement

Pressure management (as mentioned above)

Improved management of network operations
7. SUCCESSFUL IMPACT OF WDM
7.1.
FOR 2010/11
In the 2010/11 financial year, a number of successful WC/WDM projects were implemented
of which notable projects were:

Pressure Management was successfully implemented in Crossroads/Plumstead
/Retreat/Marina Da Gama/Lavender Hill. The savings are estimated at 2.28 Ml/day;

20 574 dysfunctional consumer water meters were replaced;

95 users were supplied with Treated Effluent which accounts for 30 Ml/day of re-use
(Potable Water replacement of 12.66Ml/day);

± 100 Caretakers of schools were trained ;

60 Schools were visited and leaks repaired ;

Awareness and Education with approximately 2 688 workshops;

Approximately 200 households were visited for the Integrated Leaks Repair project.
28
It must be noted that the actual savings are only shown for those WC/WDM initiatives of
which could be measured, and that the additional immeasurable savings may also have
been achieved.
7.2.

FOR 2011/12
Pressure Management successfully installed in
o
Goodwood
o
Monte Vista
o
Bishop Lavis/Bonteheuwel
o
Thornton
o
Plumstead/Retreat
o
Kalkfontein
The savings are estimated at 2.28 Ml/day
Water meters replaced = 4 804
Water meters re-fixed/relocated = 3 468
WDM Devices installed is 17 556.
29
WC/WDM Strategy Budget and Projected Water Savings
R300
60
Original Budget
Actual Expendiuture
R250
2020/21
2019/20
2018/19
2017/18
2016/17
R0
2015/16
0
2014/15
R50
2013/14
10
2012/13
R100
2011/12
20
2010/11
R150
2009/10
30
2008/9
R200
R million
Actual Savings (Ml/d)
40
2007/8
Ml/day
50
Expected Savings (Ml/d)
Figure 1: Progress from revision of WCWDM strategy (2007/08-2016/17) (source: previous
strategy)
30
Figure 1 represents the projected budget and savings as determined in the WCWDM
Strategy of 2007. It shows the anticipated year on year savings contained in the WCWDM
Strategy, as well as the year-on-year actual saving achieved.
One should take particular note of the trend in savings achieved against actual budget spent.
It is noted that there is a direct proportional relationship between the budget and the savings.
This in effect validates that the more finance allocated to WDM/WC initiatives the more
stringent projects can be implemented in effect allowing for more water to be saved.
The converse effect also applies. Should WDM receive a reduced budget it will result in a
reduction in the potential future savings that could have been achieved. The latter being due
to the lack of finance required to introduce more stringent projects.
The cumulative savings achieved since strategy implementation (2007) until 2010/11 is in
the region of 32.10million m3 per annum. This value only includes savings obtained from
treated effluent and pressure management and does not include the savings achieved
through the IWLP, pipe replacement programmes, various behaviour change programmes
and retrofitting as there were no proper control measures set out in place in order to assess
the impact of those initiatives. The expected cumulative savings was in the region of 55.20
million m3 per annum. The net difference being 22.65 million m3 per annum.
31
ANALYSIS ON WATER WASTAGE AND DEMAND
8. ANALYSIS ON WDM/WC
This section analyses the current water demand and determines the opportunity for water
reductions due to WC/WDM. The potential economic benefits of WC/WDM are also
calculated. Most of the calculations are based on assumptions and these will need to be
verified with more accurate data obtained from an appropriate Management Information
System and field research. For analysis of the WC/WDM potential, the base data used in this
study is that of the 2011/12 financial year.
8.1. Current Demand
The total water demand for the metropolitan area amounts to approximately 904.22 Ml/day
(2011/12). For analysis of the WC/WDM potential, the base data used in this study is that of
the 2011/12 financial year.
8.2. Water Use Analysis
The following demand analysis is based on the 2011/12 consumption figures. Figure 2
below depicts the water demands for the various sectors. Residential demand accounts for
47.8% of the overall demand. Between 25% and 30% of the 435 Ml/d demand is utilised for
gardening purposes.
32
2011/12
Sectoral Water Demand
904.22 Ml/day
School &
Sportsfield,
1.4%
Business, 8.2%
Municipal, 6.1%
Unbilled
Authorised
Consumption,
5.2%
UAW, 15.3%
Other, 12.9%
Residential,
47.8%
Industrial, 3.1%
UAW
Other
Industrial
Residential
Business
Municipal
School & Sportsfield
Unbilled Authorised Consumption
Figure 2: Sectoral Water Usage 2011/12
Unaccounted for Water (UAW) includes reticulation losses through leaks and apparent
losses (inaccurate meters) as well as some of the water lost as a result of theft. Please see
Figure 3 for a better overview of the sectoral water usage.
33
City of Cape Town: Sector Consumption
UAW
15.3%
5.2%
NRW
= UAW +
Unbilled Authorised
Consumption
Unbilled Authorised
Consumption
School & Sportsfield
1.4%
Municipal
6.1%
'2011/2012
Business
8.2%
Residential
47.8%
3.1%
Industrial
12.9%
0%
20%
Other
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 3: Bar representation of Sectoral Water Usage for 2011/12
From Figure 3 one can get a better understanding of the composition of NRW as opposed to
UAW. Other is defined as the sum of the water supplied externally and miscellaneous water.
The latter being the water supplied/used that could not be characterised according to the
other sector categories (Water and Sanitation, billing). Further detailed visual breakdown of
non-revenue water will be found in corresponding Figures 4, 5 and 6.
Non-Revenue
Water
20%
Revenue Water
80%
Figure 4: Revenue Water vs. Non-Revenue Water 11/12
34
Authorised
Unbilled
Consumpti
on
25%
Real
Losses
61%
Water
Losses
75%
Apparen
t Losses
39%
Figure 5: Non-Revenue Water Primary breakdown 11/12 (based on best estimate)
Leakage on Overflows
at Storage Tanks
(kl/annum)
0.5%
Leakage on Service
Connections up to point
of customer meter
0%
Unbilled metered
Authorised Consumption
(informal settlements)
(kl/annum)
16%
Unbilled metered
Authorised Consumption
(Formal Households)
(kl/annum)
4%
Unbilled unmetered
Authorised Consumption
(formal)
(kl/annum)
5%
Leakage on
Transmission and
Distribution Mains
(kl/annum)
45%
Unauthorised
Consumption (kl/annum)
5%
Customer Meter
Inaccuracies (kl/annum)
25%
Figure 6: Non-Revenue Water Secondary breakdown 11/12 (based on best estimate)
From Figures 5 and 6 one can see that the greatest losses are attributed to real losses
which are those losses from transmission and distribution mains at 45%. The second highest
contributors are the meter inaccuracies at about 25%. Age of meters play determines the
accuracy of the readings obtained from the meters. Some meters can under reading, ranging
from 2% up to 10%. The third highest contributor to the non-revenue water value is unbilled
metered consumption (informal settlements) at around 16%.
35
8.3. Water Wastage
The total unaccounted for water (water losses) is estimated at 15.3% or 138.48 Ml/day (as
at 2011/12). This includes bulk losses, reticulation losses and apparent losses (excludes
unbilled authorised consumption).
Statistics on UaW do not necessarily reflect the major impact of water wasted and is mainly
determined by consumer behaviour. A good indicator is minimum night flow (MNF). MNF is
made up of reticulation losses and consumer wastage. In a residential area where there is
no industrial water usage it can be assumed that most of the Minimum Night Flow recorded
from data logging is water wastage made up of the following:

Leaks in the reticulation systems

Leaks within the consumers’ properties (i.e. plumbing leaks)

Indiscriminate wastage of water (i.e. people leaving taps open)

Automatic flushing urinals (i.e. urinals in schools and public buildings)
The City of Cape Town is in the process of creating smaller district metered areas in order to
enable a more effective assessment of the MNF. There are over 240 pressure zones which
criss-cross residential areas, thereby making it difficult to accurately quantify the overall MNF
for the entire City. These 240 plus pressure zones are being analysed to create smaller
zones.
36
8.4. Inefficient use of water
In addition to water wastage, it is estimated that a significant proportion of water is used
inefficiently. Inefficient water use is the amount of water that can be saved by implementing
water efficient technology and practices and by altering the consumption behaviour towards
industry benchmarks and best available practices. The opportunity of reducing inefficient
water usage is related to the fact that most of the water is used for the service that is derived
from it and not for the water itself. For example, when a toilet is used the objective is to clean
the pan and contribute to the transport of sewage to the wastewater plants. If through new
technologies, the water required to flush a toilet is reduced to 3 litres (i.e.6/3 l dual flush
toilet) the objective is not altered but water consumption is reduced significantly.
The following sections outline the estimated water use inefficiencies per sector:

Residential
The per capita consumption per day for domestic water use in COCT is calculated for the
different level of services and is illustrated in Table 6 below:
Table 6: Per Capita Consumption for Domestic Water Use
Level of service
Informal – Inadequate
Informal - basic
consumers
population
per Stand
Population
Litres per
capita per day
Total demand
Ml/day
27 655
6
165 930
25
4.15
1 108
6
6 648
25
0.17
411 840
32
13.18
278 520
32
8.91
2 877 087
153.67
442.11
6
Informal – Intermediate
68 640
Informal – Full
46 420
Formal – Full
924 749
6
3
Total
1 068 572
3 740 025
468.52
Source: WSDP 2011/12/Informal Settlement (Census 2011)
Population per stand figures, for informal settlements, were based on assumption. There
was no available reference material to validate these figures thus the previous assumptions
as made in the previous strategy will remain (WCWDM Strategy 2007).
37
8.5.
End-Use Water Consumption
The average domestic water consumption is estimated at 153.67 l/day/person which is a
reduction from the previous estimated value of around 169.21l/day/person (2010/11) for
consumers with full water supply services. This is not considered excessive but there are still
opportunities for further efficiency gains. Research indicates that 15% of all domestic water
consumption is water used outside for gardening, pools and washing of cars, this implies
that the average domestic household usage per consumer is approximately 121.40 l/d/p
(refer to Table 7). Estimating how water is used within the household we can identify where
the opportunities to increase efficiency exist. Table 8 illustrates the comparison between a
typical non-efficient household, an efficient household and the average household estimated
in COCT.
The efficiency of household water use can be improved significantly through the following
key measures:

Retro-fitting of plumbing fittings

Consumer behaviour change

Pressure management

Usage of water efficient appliances
It is estimated that up to 35 % of the existing household demand in COCT can be reduced
through various WC/WDM measures - see Table 8 (Jacobs and Haarhoff, 2007).
Table 7: Split between domestic indoor and outdoor usage (Jacobs and Haarhoff, 2007)
Sub sector
%
l/p/d
Indoor use
70%
121.40
Outdoor use
15%
23.05
Leaks
7%
9.22
Total
100%
153.67
38
In general inefficient use of water for gardening could be as high as 40% (Jacobs et al.,
2007). A conservative figure of 20% is used however because water usage for gardening
continuously varies according to rainfall and weather conditions. The efficiency of water used
for gardening / outside water use can be improved significantly by (schedule 1 of Water
Bylaw of COCT):

Irrigation scheduling (no watering between 10H00 and 16H00)

Mulching

Planting local indigenous plants

Use of grey water

Replacing grassed areas with alternative ground covers

Pool covers
There is little inefficient water usage by low-income households were the level of service
often consists of a communal standpipe or a yard tap or no services at all.
Figure 7 below represents the comparison between the water usages within an informal
household vs. the water usage within a formal household. It is clear that Formal household
consumes the most amount of water. To impose water restrictions or WDM initiatives within
the informal area would not be wise as they are already restricted to a very small quantity of
water. Further reasoning is as follows
-
25 HH per stand pipe,
-
stand pipe is a distance away. So most of the time they will collect only the bear
necessity in order sustain them for the course of the night and day.
To impose water restrictions would be to cause great discord as can be seen they barely
have enough to meet the minimum conditions for health and hygiene. This is just an
example of a possible estimate of the quantity of water used for basic living activities. The
water requirement for the informal hh could still very well be well below the 32l/c/d.
39
Average Water Consumption (l/c/day)
Informal vs Formal per capita consumption
70
62.0
60
50
36.0
40
CCT
Informal Average
30
16.1
20
10
6
16
CCT Formal
Average
9
2
4.3
0
Clothes washing
WC flushing
Personal
cleansing
Cooking,
dishwashing
drinking
Component of Water Usage
Figure 7: Informal vs. Formal per Capita Consumption
40
The total inefficient water usage for domestic water is calculated at 37.04% or 129.37
Ml/day from Table 8.
A critical step in towards determining how water can be better managed, in terms of water
demand and supply and wastewater management) is to understand how water is used
(Retamel, et al., 2010)
Knowledge of the water savings achieved per end-use could be used as an indication of
which end-uses might have a relatively larger impact on water demand than others.
According to Jacobs et al (2007, pp. 511), end-uses identified as being significant in their
contribution to water demand often contribute most to the saving of water. These include the
garden, toilet, bath, shower, washing machine and leaks.
Table 8: Breakdown of Formal Residential End Use (Beal et al, 2010; Jacobs et al., 2007)
Component of
water use
(l/c/day)
Typical
nonefficient
COCT
average
Efficient
Details of use ,
estimated COCT
average
Details of use max.
efficiency
Clothes
washing
30
15
12.4
Inefficient washing
machine used 3
times per week
@110 l/load / 4.45
p/family
Efficient washing
machine used 3
times per week @ 87
l/load per 4 p/family
WC flushing
40
36
15
WC flush @ 9.5 x 4
times /day
retro fit 6/3 l dual
flush; WC flush @ (6
x10 +(3 x 3)
Personal
cleansing
80
62
40
(0.25 x bath at 70l)
+ ( 0.75 x shower at
50l) + wash basin 7l
(0.25 x bath at 50l) +
(0.75 x shower at
30l) + wash basin 5l
Cooking,
dishwashing
drinking
20
8
9
Totals
170
121.4
76.4
55.04%
37.04%
% possible
reduction
Aerators on
washbasin,
behaviour change
41
8.6. Total Opportunity for WC/WDM
The opportunities in reducing the current water demand are illustrated in the tables below.
The results are within the parameters quoted in a number of international researches,
according to previous COCT WCWDM Strategy, 2007.
Table 9: Opportunities in Reducing Water Demand
Domestic (household)
Domestic (outside use)
Efficient
Usage
Inefficient
Usage
Leaks
Total
Efficient
Usage
Inefficient
Usage
Leaks
Total
57%
37%
6%
100%
74%
20%
6%
100%
200.3
130.3
21.1
351.7
86.4
23.4
7.0
116.8
Industrial
Commercial / business
1
Efficient
Usage
Inefficient
Usage
Leaks
Total
(Ml/day)
Efficient
Usage
Inefficient
Usage
Leaks
Total
85%
10%
5%
100%
65%
25%
10%
100%
25.8
3.0
1.5
30.3
68.7
26.4
10.6
105.7
Municipal
other consumers
2
2
Efficient
Usage
Inefficient
Usage
Leaks
Total
(Ml/day)
Efficient
Usage
Inefficient
Usage
Plumbi.Leaks
Total
(Ml/day)
65%
25%
10%
100%
65%
25%
10%
100%
39.3
15.1
6.0
60.4
93.1
35.8
14.3
143.2
Sports fields and Schools
2
Efficient
Usage
Inefficient
Usage
Leaks
Total
(Ml/day)
65%
25%
10%
100%
17.5
6.7
2.7
26.9
UAW + bulk losses
Summary - Total
Leaks
bursts
Background
Leaks
Commercial
Losses
Total
Efficient
Usage
Inefficient
Usage
Leaks
Total
30.00%
20%
50.00%
100%
58.73%
26.62%
14.65%
100%
41.5
27.7
69.2
138.5
531.1
240.7
132
904
From Table 9 above the total water wastage and the total inefficient water use is as follows:
1. Wasted water (leaks)
=
132.0 Ml/day
2. Inefficient usage
=
240.7 Ml/day
42
Table 10: Summary of Potential Savings and Activities
Inefficiency component Max Saving %
Ml/day
1
Reduction of NRW
69.2
Target
savings
Savings
target
(Ml/day)
60%
41.5
Description
Comprehensive reticulation
management
programme
(Pressure Management and
pipe replacement)
2
3
Inefficient water
50.5
75%
37.8
Comprehensive management
consumption in low
programme
income areas
area
Inefficient water
119.5
80%
95.6
in
low
income
Behaviour change
consumption of business
Retrofit
/ industry
Leak repair
4
Inefficient water
131.3
75%
98.5
Behaviour change
consumption of domestic,
Retrofit
affluent consumers
Leak repair/ Flow Limiter
Effective Tariff
5
Treated effluent and
80.5
42%
34.0
alternative water
resources
Total
451.0
307.5
43
These savings are based on a theoretical analysis of COCT current water consumption vs.
the “best” or most efficient consumption. The above savings is not linked to the COCT
budget provision and merely takes on a theoretical approach assuming that maximum
resources are available. It is not necessarily the economical solution. It provides good bases
on the inefficiency of the water usage. The percentage target savings were determined by
previous consultant (Conward Consulting, 2007).
8.2. Total Real Savings for WCWDM
Although in theory, Table 10 would have provided the maximum savings that could still be
achieved provided that full resources are made available, Table 11 (and corresponding
figures) provides a more realistic and conservative approach to the potential savings that
can be achieved through the various WDM initiatives.
Table 11: Goal A and D breakdown into sub goal targets
Description
GOAL
A
Water Losses
2010/11
(Baselin
e)
2011/12
Target
19.8%
15.3%
>15%
Intervention

Apparent Losses (Unbilled
Unauthorised Consumption)
7%
6.3%
4%
- Meter replacement program
- Meter Audits and data clean-up

Unauthorised Consumption
1.0%
1%
1%
Conforms to International benchmarks.
Water Audits would be useful in reduce
and maintaining

Customer Meter
Inaccuracies
6.0%
5.0%
3%-4%

Real Losses
12.8%
9.3%
8%-9%

Leakage on Transmission
and Distribution Mains
12.71%
9.18
8%-9%

Leakage on Overflows at
Storage Tanks
0.05%
0.10
-
Monitor and respond to concerns –
pro-active maintenance and on
demand maintenance/repairs.

Leakage on Service
Connections up to point of
customer meter
NRW
Negligible
Negligible
-
-
23.4%
20.5%
>20%
3.61%
5.15%
2%-3%
Metering and monitoring and pro-active
maintenance
SAP clean up
7%
6%
3- 4%
As stated in Goal A
12.8%
9.3%
8-10%
As stated in Goal A
GOAL D

Unbilled Authorised
Consumption

Apparent Losses (Unbilled
Unauthorised Consumption)

Real Losses
- Water Audits
- Meter age analysis/Audits
Meter replacement Program
-Pressure Management
-Leak Detection
-Pipe Replacement
44
8.6.1. Expansion of Goal A and Goal D sub-goals
GOAL A: REDUCTION OF WATER LOSSES TO BELOW 15%
Water losses, also known as unaccounted for water (UFW), is defined as the sum of the real
and apparent losses and are calculated from the difference between the total system input
and the authorised consumption (Wegelin et al).

Apparent Losses:
Not actually losses/not actually losing water. It represents revenue lost to the system.
The root causes of apparent losses are:
Users not paying for the water they use through one of two sources:
-
Meter inaccuracies (meters typically fail or lose accuracy as a result of age).
-
Illegal use of water/illegal connections
In general, your apparent losses can range from 0-10%. Each municipality/ region should
manage the components of apparent losses according to their own system (Farley M., &
Trow, S., 2003).
Meter inaccuracies
Methods to improve or reduce the meter inaccuracies are through the following:
-
Meter age analysis
-
Determine what the potential losses are (% area)
-
Meter replacement programme needs to be in place.
Internal discussions have taken place and the following challenges have been identified:
-
Lack of resources (both financial and staff)
Discussions with internal CCT officials revealed that ±12.5% of the meters are above the
age of 20 years. Internal investigations have proven that often the older meters do not have
any inaccuracies. The greater percentage error is normally found in meters where the
quality of the water is not of good standard or where the device operates above the design
flow rate. However, the above information is based on a small sample investigation and
more detailed investigations need to be performed. The latter operation requiring a set
staffs compliment operating within a particular unit. A further need for this unit is that often
an error is sent out if a reading exceeds certain consumption however the concern is that
meters which begin to reflect low consumption, for high water consumers, are not identified.
Consequently, having the situation where the meters are being under read.
45
Illegal use of water/illegal connections
This is also termed unauthorised consumption and occurs to a greater or lesser extent in
most worldwide systems. Well managed systems do not exceed 1% of system input.
England and Whales are within the region of ±0.36% of system input (Farley M., & Trow, S.,
2003).
It is generally associated with the misuse of fire hydrants and fire service connections and
illegal connections.
Misuse may be identified through pressure management or sample metering of normally
unmetered fire services. Checking for possible illegal connections more than likely
commences with the identification of customers with unusually low consumption. In general,
unauthorised consumption is generally dealt with through good billing procedures.

Real Losses
Real losses are defined as the sum of the leakage and overflows at reservoirs, leakage on
service connections up to metering point and leakage on transmission and distribution
mains, up to the point of customer metering point.
In order to reduce these types of system losses the following programmes need to
implement (refer to pages 85-96 of WCWDM Strategy, 2007 for detailed description of the
programmes):

Pressure Management

Leak Repair

Pipe replacement
46
According to Miya, Technical Water related terms, non-visible leaks account for more than
90% of the total volume of real losses. More water is lost through small hidden leaks, which
often run for years, than the most dramatic surface bursts.
Assumptions made in terms of water savings for pipe replacement programmes were based
on calculating the unavoidable annual real losses versus the current annual real losses.

Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL) is the minimum level of real losses for a
specific system that can be achieved under the most efficient operating conditions.
UARL is an indication of the level of leakage that can theoretically be achieved if
everything possible is done to minimise the leakage and is generally not an achievable
target for most water suppliers since UARL is normally well below the economic level of
leakage.

Current Annual Real Losses (CARL) is the real losses for the period under consideration.
In order to assess how serious the leakage is, within the system, the infrastructure leakage
index (ILI) was determined. The latter providing an indication of how serious the leakage
occurring within a particular area is compared to the theoretical minimum level. ILI is defined
as:
ILI = CARL/UARL
Table 12: COCT combined reticulation and bulk water mains system analysis
Approx.
Length
installed
Length
includes
Bulk (km)
Average
Pressure (m)
No.
Connections
USPC Report
June 2012
No.
Bursts/day
USPC
Report
June 2012
CARL (l/d)
UARL (l/d)
10 805
55
623 191
*35
83 914 781
38 143 082
*Over the first 6 months of this 2012 calendar year the burst main rate is at 35 bursts/100km/year.
Leakage
Index
2.2
The above Table provides a rough representation of the state of the COCT network.
According to Trifunović, 2006, an infrastructure leakage index in the range of 2-4
characterises the system as having a medium level of losses. There is potential for marked
improvements. Optimisations in active leakage control practices and better network
maintenance is a requirement.
As per Farley M., & Trow, S., 2003, worldwide international indexes have been compared.
The supply system which holds similar characteristics to the COCT, ranked 8 out of 27
countries, referenced as sample 9 holds the following characteristics:
47
Table 13: COCT ILI compared to an international country’s ILI – benchmarking
Description
Average
Density
of
Pressure
connections
Average
International
Real
length
ILI
losses
of
(m)
REF 9
City of Cape
Town
(conn/km)
pipe
Consumption
(l/conn/d)
Real
losses
(l/conn/day)
%
of
from
system
street
input.
60
50
0
1.66
114
1199
9.5
55
58
0
2.20
221
1450
11.4
The target savings for COCT were based on the above reference 9, where their % system
real losses are approximately 9.5%. One needs to keep in mind that targets can only be set
against systems with similar conditions (Farley M., & Trow, S., 2003).
GOAL D: REDUCTION OF NON-REVENUE WATER TO BELOW 20%
Non-revenue water as previously defined is composed of the following:

Water losses (as described above)

Authorised unbilled consumption (as described in section 6.2)
o
Unbilled metered consumption
o
Unbilled unmetered consumption
48
9. DEMAND PROJECTIONS
A number of demand projections have been developed over a number of years. Figure 8
represents the unconstrained water demand vs. the actual demand volume. The
unconstrained demand represents what the COCT demand would have been had WCWDM
initiatives not been implemented. Up until recently, COCT no longer uses this curve to bench
mark WCWDM initiative success. On average, up until and including 2010/11, the actual
Demand (m3/annum)
Millions
demand has managed to fall on average 27% below the unconstrained demand curve.
600
100.00%
90.00%
500
80.00%
70.00%
400
60.00%
300
50.00%
40.00%
200
25.93%
26.74%
25.49%
30.00%
26.76%
25.81%
27.60%
20.00%
100
10.00%
UWD
BULK VOLUME TREATED
2015/16
2014/15
2013/14
2012/13
2011/12
2010/11
2009/10
2008/09
2007/08
2006/07
2005/06
2004/05
2003/04
0.00%
2002/03
0
% Below Unconstrained Demand
Figure 8: Unconstrained Water Demand vs. Actual Water Demand Volume
49
9.1. Projected unrestricted
Based on an average 3% water demand growth, from Figure 9, within the COCT, baseline
2011, and an allocation of 399 million m3 per annum, the next augmentation scheme would
have been required by 2016 had no WCWDM initiatives been further implemented. Bearing
in mind that the latter assumes that system yield remains constant (which is not the case).
Currently, according to the progress report of Reconciliation Study, next augmentation
scheme to be implemented by 2019.
Water Demand million m3 per annum
Water Demand Chart
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1999
2001
2002
2004
2005
2006
2008
2009
2010
Projected Unrestricted
2012
2013
2014
2016
2017
2019
2020
2021
Existing Demand Growth
2023
2024
System yield
Figure 9: Water Demand Chart
From Table 14 it can be seen that water demand trends are tending toward the low water
requirement curve (LWR = 1.45%) as opposed to the HWR of 3.09% (LWR AND HWR
curves as set out in the Water Reconciliation Study).
Table 14: Historical Water Demand Growth
Year
Percentage Water Demand Growth
07/08
2.29%
08/09
3.21%
09/10
1.65%
10/11
1.66%
11/12
-1.8%
Average
1.40%
50
9.2. High and Low Water Requirements
The COCT has determined two future water requirement curves, namely a HWR Curve with
a growth of 3.38 % per annum and a LWR Curve and a high water demand future demand
requirement with a growth of 2% per annum (DWA uses 3.09% and 1.45% respectively).
9.2.1. Determining High Water Requirement
The following motivation is given regarding the determination of the high water requirement
curve:
1. Due to HIV/AIDS and other factors, the average population growth rate is 2.7%.
2. The current economic growth rate is estimated at 4.09 % (2010).
3. Normally the water demand growth is a combination of the current population and
economic growth rate which would imply that the water demand growth rate should
be about 3.3 % p.a. provided the average population growth rate is maintained.
4. Considering that domestic water demand is significantly more than the industrial
and commercial water demand, we can conclude that the demand growth will be
more closely related to the population growth rate rather than the economic growth
rate.
9.2.2. Starting points of High Water Requirements
The strategy was initially revised in 2010/11 financial year. The starting point of the HWR
developed specifically for COCT is at the demand during 2010/11.
9.2.3. Determining the Low Water Requirement
The low requirement curve was calculated at 2% and was determined based on reducing the
maximum demand growth by factors such as economic growth rate, population growth rate,
growth
in
demand
of
new
consumers
and
impact
of
HIV/Aids.
51
Impact of WCWDM Initiatives on the LWR and HWR
Impact of WDM Initiatives on LWR and HWR curve (assuming 100% success)
Water Demand in million m3 per annum
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
Actual Demand
HRW (at 3.38%)
Impact of WC/WDM 3.38% Growth
System Yield
Impact of WC/WDM on 2% Growth
LWR (at 2%)
2028
Year
Impact of Climate Change on System Yield
Figure 10: Impact of WCWDM on LWR and HWR curve includes impact of climate change on system yield (100% success)
52
Impact of WDM Initiatives on LWR and HWR curve (assuming 50% Success)
550
Water Demand in million m3 per annum
500
450
400
350
300
250
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
Year
Actual Demand
HRW (at 3.38%)
Impact of WC/WDM 3.38% Growth
System Yield
Impact of WC/WDM on 2% Growth
LWR (at 2%)
Impact of Climate Change on System Yield
Figure 11: Impact of WCWDM on LWR and HWR curve includes impact of climate change on system yield (50% success)
53
9.3.
Analysis of Demand Curves
Each graph, Figure 10 and 11, assess’ the impact of WC/WDM, as depicted in the
cumulative savings found in Table 17, through different scenarios.
Table 15: Impact of WC/WDM on Water Demand
Scenario
Demand Projection
3.38%
2%
No WC/WDM
2016
2019
100% Success of WC/WDM
2019
2025
50% Success of WC/WDM
2017
2022
Note: These figures are for internal use only and does not in any way replace the projections
as made or found within the Water Resource Reconciliation Strategy.
It is assumed that climate change will impact water demand in such a manner that it will
reduce the system yield by 5% over the next 25 years (Recon Study, November 2011).
Although researchers have indicated that climate change does not impact on the system
yield at a steady decline but rather has a fluctuating or erratic trend. In order to implement
the best possible impact of climate change on the system yield, detailed modelling will be
required.
Table 16: Impact of Climate Change on Water Demand
Scenario
Demand Projection
3.3%
2%
No WC/WDM
2015
2018
100% Success of WC/WDM
2018
2023
50% Success of WC/WDM
2016/17
2021
54
10. BENEFITS OF WCWDM STRATEGY INITIATIVES
10.1. Benefits to WSA

Postponement of capital infrastructure for water supply

WCWDM reduces the uncertainty of demand forcasts
10.2. Benefits to the community and individuals

Ensure sustainable, efficient and effective service delivery, particulary in low-income
areas (WDM devices).

Creating jobs in plumbing and other semi-skilled jobs within the community.
10.3. Sustainability and Economic Benefit
Total expenditure, since strategy implementation up until 2011/12, equated to approximately
R 442 891 172 (over five years – refer to Table 17). The reticulation cost of water is
approximately R9.88/kl*. Based on the cumulative saving of 110 638 kl/day (since strategy
implementation), the financial savings would have fallen within the region of approximately
R1 093 103.44 (net effect ± R441 798 068.60).
Table 17: Actual Expenditure vs. Allocated Budget
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
20010/11
2011/12
Total
Actual Expenditure
65 542 929
112 367 033
65 373 386
84 226 510
115 381 313
442 891 172
Provided Budget
85 153 788
119 163 615
80 306 513
96 773 186
120 566 653
501 963 755
**88% of allocated budget spent
NOTE: ACTUAL savings to date only include savings generated through Pressure
Management and Treated Effluent interventions and do not include impact of other WDM
initiatives on water demand as certain initiatives were not easily quantifiable.
Table 18 represents the projects to be implemented over the next 10 years and their
associated savings.
*Source: Finance Department
55
Table 18: Future Projects required to offset Water Demand (reduce losses and reduce NRW)
Programme to be implemented (water losses)
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
Pressure Management
2.27
0.84
1.57
2.61
2.00
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
Pipe Replacement (115km per year)
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
Treated Effluent
0.11
1.27
0.57
0.62
0.87
1.05
0.55
0.61
0.67
0.67
Water Meter Replacement
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
Retrofit and leak repair
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
Total reduction in Water losses (yr. on yr.) - 1
4.77
4.50
4.53
5.62
5.26
5.30
4.80
4.86
4.92
4.92
cumulative (million m3/annum)
4.77
9.27
13.80
19.42
24.67
29.97
34.78
39.64
44.55
49.47
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
Water Management Device (Improve NRW)
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
Total NRW reduction (1 + 2)
5.90
7.61
5.48
6.26
7.55
4.54
3.88
3.94
4.00
4.00
5.90
13.51
18.98
25.24
32.78
37.32
41.20
45.14
49.13
53.13
Additional programme to be implemented which impact on NRW - 2
3
cumulative (million m /annum)
3
After 10 years (from 2011/12 till 2020/21) the water losses have the potential to be reduced by 49.47 million m /annum and the overall NRW has the potential
3
of being reduced by 53.34 million m /annum.
3
From the year 2007 (since strategy implementation), WCWDM would have accounted for a cumulative total of 32.55million m (actual) plus 49.47 million
3
3
m /annum. The cumulative savings will be approximately 82.02 million m /annum, as at the end of 2020/21.
56
Table 19: Budget requirements and associated savings based on two scenarios (100% and 50% successful implementation of WCWDM)
Initiative
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/2020
2020/2021
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
Pressure Management
R 14.35
R 16.00
R 20.00
R 20.00
R 20.00
R 20.00
R 20.00
R 20.00
R 16.50
R 18.15
Pipe Replacement (Replace 115km pipe per
R 83.80
R 83.80
R 96.99
R 56.04
R 117.94
R 99.50
R 77.50
R 77.50
R 159.09
R 89.93
R 6.19
R 18.00
R 28.60
R 25.00
R 25.00
R 27.00
R 25.00
R 25.00
R 30.70
R 40.70
R 50.00
R 50.00
R 90.00
R 147.00
R 222.19
R 18.00
R 18.00
R 18.00
R 19.00
R 19.00
Retrofit and leak repair
R 6.00
R 9.20
R 9.40
R 10.80
R 12.70
R 14.20
R 11.00
R 15.00
R 16.50
R 18.15
Capital and Operating
R 160.34
R 177.00
R 244.99
R 258.84
R 397.83
R 178.70
R 151.50
R 155.50
R 241.79
R 185.93
4.77
9.27
13.80
19.42
24.67
29.97
34.78
39.64
44.55
49.47
2.76
6.37
8.91
11.85
15.43
17.50
19.25
21.02
22.83
24.63
year)
Treated Effluent
Water meter replacement
Scenario 1: 100% Success WCWDM
interventions
(million m3/annum) Cumulative
Scenario 2: 50% Success on WCWDM
interventions
(million m3/annum) Cumulative
The above budget does not include all operational budget requirements and only focuses on those initiatives which may have a measurable impact on the
NRW/water loss value.
57
6.00
R 450.00
Expected Savings in million m3/ annum
R 400.00
5.00
R 350.00
4.00
R 300.00
R 250.00
3.00
R 200.00
2.00
R 150.00
R 100.00
1.00
R 50.00
0.00
2011/12
Retrofit and leak repair
0.09
Water meter replacement
1.01
Treated Effluent
0.11
Pipe Replacement (30km per year)
1.29
Pressure Management
2.27
Budget (R million)
R160.34
2012/13
0.09
1.01
1.27
1.29
0.84
R177.00
2013/14
0.09
1.01
0.57
1.29
1.57
R244.99
2014/15
0.09
1.01
0.62
1.29
2.61
R258.84
2015/16
0.09
1.01
0.87
1.29
2.00
R397.83
2016/17
0.09
1.01
1.05
1.29
1.86
R178.70
2017/18
0.09
1.01
0.55
1.29
1.86
R151.50
2018/19
0.09
1.01
0.61
1.29
1.86
R155.50
2019/20
0.09
1.01
0.67
1.29
1.86
R241.79
2020/21
0.09
1.01
0.67
1.29
1.86
R185.93
R 0.00
Figure 12: Year on Year Potential Savings to be achieved based on planned projects (proposed)
58
R 500.00
Expected Savings in million m3/annum
60.00
R 450.00
50.00
R 400.00
R 350.00
40.00
R 300.00
R 250.00
30.00
R 200.00
20.00
R 150.00
R 100.00
10.00
R 50.00
R 0.00
0.00
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
Scenario 2: 50% Success on WCWDM interventions
Scenario 1: 100% Success WCWDM interventions
Capital and Operating
Figure 13: Cumulative Savings vs. five year WDM and Operations projected budget
Figure 13 represents the cumulative savings and associated budget allocated per annum.
WDM and operations provided the list of programmes, the budget required and potential
savings associated to each programme.
59
10.4.
Costs required sustain the savings
R 5.00
R 4.50
R 4.00
R 3.50
R 3.00
R 2.50
R 2.00
R 1.50
R 1.00
R 0.50
R 0.00
Zone Metering
Logger installation
Information System Server
Pipe Maintenance
(Once off Capex)
Figure 14: Initial capital investment required to sustain the savings projected
Figure 14 provides one with an overview of the initial capital costs required to sustain the
savings through certain programmes. Not all projects required an initial capital investment;
however these projects will have an operational cost (as shown in Figure 15).
Pipe maintenance has a once off capital investment requirement. PRV capital investment
increases as the number of PRV’s installed increase.
60
R 60.00
R 50.00
R 40.00
R 30.00
R 20.00
R 10.00
R 0.00
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
Community Engagement
Conditional Assessment
Water Management Device/ Smart Metering
Leak Detection Projects
Feasibility Studies/Research
Education and Awareness Campaigns
Pipe Maintenance
PRV Maintenance
Creation of DMA's
WDM Maintenance
Figure 15: Operating Costs required to sustain the year on year savings projected (proposed)
61
Table 20: Budget required for sustaining of the savings
Initiative
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
Zone Metering
R 2.00
R 2.40
R 3.00
R 3.30
R 3.63
R 3.99
R 4.39
R 2.00
R 1.60
R 1.24
Logger installation
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
Information System Server
R 0.13
R 0.00
R 0.13
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
Pipe Maintenance
(Once off Capex)
R 0.60
Capex
Initiative
R 3.63
R 3.90
R 4.63
R 3.30
R 3.63
R 3.99
R 4.39
R 2.00
R 1.60
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
R 1.24
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
Community Engagement
R 6.50
R 6.50
R 6.00
R 6.00
R 6.00
R 6.00
R 6.00
R 6.00
R 6.00
R 6.00
Conditional Assessment
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
Water Management Device/ Smart
Metering
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 35.00
R 35.00
R 35.00
R 35.00
R 35.00
R 35.00
R 35.00
R 35.00
Leak Detection Projects
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
Feasibility Studies/Research
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
Education and Awareness Campaigns
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 2.00
R 2.00
R 2.00
R 2.00
R 2.00
R 2.00
R 2.00
R 2.00
Pipe Maintenance
R 3.60
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
PRV Maintenance
R 2.50
R 2.50
R 2.50
R 2.50
R 2.50
R 2.50
R 2.50
R 2.50
R 2.50
R 2.50
Creation of DMA's
R 0.00
R 0.60
R 0.60
R 0.60
R 0.60
R 0.66
R 0.73
R 0.80
R 0.88
R 0.97
WDM Maintenance
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 2.40
R 2.64
R 2.90
R 3.19
R 3.51
R 3.87
R 4.25
R 4.68
Meter Audits
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 18.60
R 18.60
R 56.00
R 56.24
R 56.50
R 56.85
R 57.24
R 57.66
R 58.13
R 58.64
Opex
NOTE: Indicates Completed Financial year but does not imply that projects proposed were implemented
TOTAL
R 32.31
TOTAL
R 494.48
R 526.78
62
Table 21: Additional estimated costs required to increase savings at different percentage levels (proposed)
Year 1
Sustain Current
Savings
Projects
Pressure Management
Pipe Replacement (30km per
year)
(Pipe Maintenance)
Treated effluent (yr.)
OPEX
CAPEX
Year 1 forward Financial Investment
Required to
Increase Savings
1%
2%
3%
Ranking
Comments
350 000
3 643 200
5 659 255
11 318 510
16 977 765
Capex
1
3 060 000
600 000
24 388 903
48 777 806
73 166 710
Capex
3
750 000
350 000
16 626 805
33 253 609
49 880 414
Capex
2
Dependent on whether it
replaces potable water
usage or not (Details found
in Treated Effluent Master
Plan)
Water meter replacement
1 000 000
-
27 070 398
54 140 795
81 211 193
Opex
4
IWLP
1 770 000
-
31 743 538
63487077
95 230 615
Opex
5
Leak Detection (on pipe
infrastructure)
1 100 000
-
7 000 000
9 000 000
12 000 000
Opex
2
Households (indigent only)
Performed in areas where
Pressure Management has
either been implemented
or expected to be
implemented
Education and Awareness
3 500 000
-
5 000 000
5 000 000
5 000 000
Opex
-
Qualitative
The above table reflects the costs required to increase the potable water savings above the potential cumulative savings of 49.47million
m3/annum. According to Shepherd, 2012, in order for the mains replacement programme to be effective there is a need to ensure that all real
loss reduction interventions (pressure management and active leakage control) are carefully aligned and complementary to each other, rather
than working against each other.
63
Pressures within the COCT must be reduced as much as possible before mains
replacement. This reduction may improve the zone performances and contribute to
extending the life of the mains such that the replacement of the pipes is delayed. Water
distribution infrastructure is in a continuous state of becoming weak. The replacement and
maintenance of mains must be an on-going, continuous programme.
Leak detection and repair programmes (on reticulation mains) are fundamental in assisting
with the reduction of real losses. Minimize the real losses as much as possible through
consecutive leak detection and repair exercises. The pressure across an entire supply area
needs to be managed in order to ensure that leakage levels are in fact reduced through
leakage replacement. IWLP is only applied to indigent households.
Replace all service connections during the replacement of the water mains as these
connections are often of a similar age to the distribution mains and statistically they account
for 50% of the leakage (Shepherd, 2012).

Further recommendations include (Shepherd, 2012):

Ensure all properties are metered and that consumers are being billed;

Install meters to all other discharge points especially informal areas;

Replace all meter installations that do not comply with installation standards;

Replace all meters that have exceeded their replacement criteria (volume passed
or old age);

After completion of the mains replacement, monitor the water sales and
determine if any of the consumer meters have detectably slowed down and these
should then be targeted for replacement;

Attend to all other meter / billing discrepancies (Stopped meters, meters with no
registered consumer, meter tampering, illegal connections), so as to minimize the
apparent losses and reduce the NRW;

Detect and report all illegal connections that are discovered during the mains
replacement programme and ensure that procedures are put in place to achieve
successful prosecutions (water audits)
64
11. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the demand trend it is evident that the water demand is tending toward the low
water requirement curve far exceeding the target of 2.0% as stated in goal E. This is an
indication that, despite the increase in population, the WC/WDM was able to sustain the
water demand below the target of 2.0%.
The water balance indicates the importance of reporting according to the IWA water balance,
on all the major components, as this will lead to identifying where the major system losses
(real or apparent) exist. The accuracy of the reported data on water consumption in the
reticulation network is being improved with the setting out and implementation of District
Metered Areas, as part of the Strategy implementation (VelaVKE, 2010).
Significant savings have been reported through the strategy’s implementation for the period
2007 - 2011. Most of these savings only include those savings achieved through pressure
management and treated effluent re-use.
The projected estimated maximum potential savings of 82.02 million m3/annum (which
includes what was saved, since strategy implementation, up until 2010/11) will potentially be
achieved provided WC/WDM have full resource co-operation.
Over time enough data could be collected to represent more accurately the effects of climate
change and how it will impact on the water resource.
Recommendations
Many comments have been made concerning the energy savings that will be achieved
through WC/WDM but no attempt has been made to assess the energy savings within
COCT based on the water savings. It would be important, in future to consider a study that
will assess the impact of WC/WDM on energy reduction.
A system needs to be set-up which will assist in overall monitoring of the system losses and
one which will accurately calculate and monitor all losses within the system.
A control measure needs to be set-up in order to better assess the savings achieved
especially concerning the more qualitative measures which include education and
awareness.
65
More complex models need to be developed overtime in order to better understand the
effect and impact of climate change on the availability of our water resource.
The COCT must take on an active role in monitoring and maintaining all the areas where the
different WCWDM programmes have been implemented.
Calculations are to be carried out recording the benefits achieved during the implementation
of various WCWDM programmes and these figures are to be utilized in the calculations to
determine the economic cost of intervention/programme.
66
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Beal, C., Stewart, R. & Huang, T. 2010. South East Queensland Residential End Use Study:
Baseline Results. Urban Water Security Research Alliance Technical Report, 31.
Campbell, H., Johnson, R., & Hunt, L. 2004. Prices, Devices, People, or Rules: The Relative
Effectiveness of Policy Instruments in Water Conservation,” Review of Policy Research. 21
(5).
City of Cape Town, 2010. Progress with Implementation of the Long Term Water
Conservation and Water Demand Management Strategy, Assessment, Summary Report,
September 2010.
Conward Consulting, April 2007. COCT Long-Term Water Conservation and Water Demand
Management Strategy, Water & Sanitation.
DWA, 2010. Western Cape Water Supply System, Reconciliation Strategy, Progress Report,
September 2010.
Farley, M., & Trow, S., 2003. Losses in Water Distribution Networks: A Practitioners Guide to
Assessment, Monitoring and Control. IWA Publishing, UK, pp. 4-13.
Havenga, B., de Jager, G., Knoesen, D., Gray, R., Gerber, A., & Wilson, O. 2010. Groundbreaking study on Lesotho on the effects of Climate Change on Dam Yields. Journal of Civil
Engineering.
Jacobs, H. E., Geustyn, K. F., Daniels, J. & du Plessis, J.A. 2007. Analysis of Water
Savings: a case study during the 2004/5 water restrictions in Cape Town. Journal of the
South African Institute of Civil Engineering. 49 (3), pp. 16-26.
Jacobs, H.E., 2007. The First Reported Correlation between End-use Estimates of
Residential water demand and measured use in South Africa, Water SA, 33 (4), pp. 549548.
Jacobs, H.E., & Haarhoff, J., 2007. Prioritisation of Parameters Influencing Residential Water
Use and Wastewater flow. Journal of water Supply: Research and Technology, 56 (8), pp.
495-512.
Retamal, M., Dinh Giang Nam, N., Willets, J., Mitchell, C., & Carrad, N. 2010. Comparing
Household Water End-Use Data from Vietnam and Australia: Implications for Water and
Wastewater Planning. Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney,
Australia.
67
Shepherd, M., & Scruton, S. R., 2012. Does Mains Replacement Always Replace Real
Losses? Results and Lessons Learned From A Large-Scale Mains Replacement
Programme in Durban. WISA 2012 Conference. May 2012.
Trifunović, N. 2006. Introduction to Urban Water Distribution. Taylor and Francis, London.
VelaVKE, September 2010. COCT Progress with the Implementation of WC/WDM Strategy
–Summary Report.
Wegelin, W.A, and McKenzie R.S., 2010. Estimating The Potential Savings Through Water
Conservation and Demand Management For Strategic Planning Purposes. WRP Consulting
Engineers. South Africa.
Wegelin, W.A., McKenzie, R.S., Herbst, P., & Wensley, A. 2010. Benchmarking and
Tracking of Water Losses in All Municipalities of South Africa. WRP Consulting Engineers.
South Africa.
68
ANNEXURE 1:
CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGET
REQUIRED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF VARIOUS STRATEGIC
PROGRAMMES
69
Initiative
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
Pressure Management
R 14.35
R 16.00
Pipe Replacement
R 83.80
Treated Effluent
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/2020
2020/2021
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
R 20.00
R 20.00
R 20.00
R 20.00
R 20.00
R 20.00
R 16.50
R 18.15
R 83.80
R 96.99
R 56.04
R 117.94
R 99.50
R 77.50
R 77.50
R 159.09
R 89.93
R 6.19
R 18.00
R 28.60
R 25.00
R 25.00
R 27.00
R 25.00
R 25.00
R 30.70
R 40.70
Zone Metering
R 2.00
R 2.40
R 3.00
R 3.30
R 3.63
R 3.99
R 4.39
R 2.00
R 1.60
R 1.24
Logger installation
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
Water meter replacement
R 50.00
R 50.00
R 90.00
R 147.00
R 222.19
R 18.00
R 18.00
R 18.00
R 19.00
R 19.00
Capex
R 157.84
R 171.70
R 240.09
R 251.34
R 388.76
R 168.49
R 144.89
R 142.50
R 226.89
R 169.02
R 2 061.52
Initiative
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
TOTAL
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/2020
2020/2021
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
(Million)
Retrofit and leak repair
R 6.00
R 9.20
R 9.40
R 10.80
R 12.70
R 14.20
R 11.00
R 15.00
R 16.50
R 18.15
Community Engagement
R 6.50
R 6.50
R 6.00
R 6.00
R 6.00
R 6.00
R 6.00
R 6.00
R 6.00
R 6.00
Conditional Assessment
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
Water Management Device/ Smart
Metering
Leak Detection Projects
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 35.00
R 35.00
R 35.00
R 35.00
R 35.00
R 35.00
R 35.00
R 35.00
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
Feasibility Studies/Research
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 1.50
Education and Awareness Campaigns
R 1.50
R 1.50
R 2.00
R 2.00
R 2.00
R 2.00
R 2.00
R 2.00
R 2.00
R 2.00
Pipe Maintenance
R 3.60
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
R 3.00
PRV Maintenance
R 2.50
R 2.50
R 2.50
R 2.50
R 2.50
R 2.50
R 2.50
R 2.50
R 2.50
R 2.50
Creation of DMA's
R 0.00
R 0.60
R 0.60
R 0.60
R 0.60
R 0.66
R 0.73
R 0.80
R 0.88
R 0.97
WDM Maintenance
R 0.00
R 0.00
R 2.40
R 2.64
R 2.90
R 3.19
R 3.51
R 3.87
R 4.25
R 4.68
Meter Audits
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 1.20
R 1.20
Opex
R 25.80
R 29.00
R 66.60
R 68.24
R 70.40
R 72.25
R 69.44
R 73.86
R 75.83
R 77.99
NOTE: Indicates Completed Financial year but does not imply that projects proposed were implemented
TOTAL
R 629.43
R 2 690.95
70
ANNEXURE 2:
FIVE YEAR PRESSURE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME ALIGHNED TO
PIPE REPLACEMENT PROGRAMME
71
AREA (Proposed
DMA's)
Length of mains
to be replaced (m)
Burst Frequency
per 100km
KRAAIFONTEIN
3 330
164.37
ATHLONE
31 865
142.22
HELDERBERG
17 807
139.00
2013/14
HOUTBAY
5 220
124.00
2013/14
ATHLONE
3 712
101.86
2013/14
KRAAIFONTEIN
714
99.81
2013/14
DUYNEFONTEIN
1 566
94.29
2013/14
CAPE TOWN
150
93.72
yes
2013/14
CAPE TOWN
2 520
84.98
yes
2013/14
KRAAIFONTEIN
3 630
75.97
2013/14
820
74.90
2013/14
1 216
67.64
DURBANVILLE
700
66.02
2013/14
KRAAIFONTEIN
10 120
63.24
2013/14
KENSINGTON
1 380
62.57
2013/14
DURBANVILLE
3 600
61.66
2013/14
ATHLONE
2 330
58.80
2013/14
940
58.56
2014/15
1 969
57.21
CONSTANTIA
720
55.52
2014/15
CONSTANTIA
1 110
52.99
2014/15
CAPE TOWN
1 008
51.00
2014/15
MUIZENBERG
2 000
49.90
2014/15
KRAAIFONTEIN
15 455
47.43
2014/15
ATHLONE
1 520
47.00
MUIZENBERG
2 500
45.45
2014/15
MUIZENBERG
250
44.11
2014/15
KENSINGTON
760
43.81
2014/15
CAPE TOWN
1 483
42.08
2015/16
ATHLONE
1 095
39.02
2015/16
TABLE VIEW
ATHLONE
CAPE TOWN
ATHLONE
PRV INSTALLED
Year
2013/14
YES & DMA
YES & DMA
YES & DMA
YES & DMA
2013/14
2013/14
2014/15
2014/15
72
ATHLONE
500
38.71
BELLVILLE
2 252
38.41
OCEAN VIEW
1 800
37.72
CAPE TOWN
1 500
35.21
yes
2015/16
GRASSY PARK
1 280
34.07
YES & DMA
2015/16
DURBANVILLE
1 600
31.64
yes
2015/16
CONSTANTIA
770
30.59
2015/16
ATHLONE
2 415
30.00
2015/16
KENSINGTON
4 740
28.25
CAPE TOWN
300
26.71
2016/17
6 735
25.92
2016/17
ATHLONE
600
24.50
2016/17
CONSTANTIA
200
23.36
2016/17
CAPE TOWN
530
23.34
CONSTANTIA
551
21.93
2016/17
CONSTANTIA
2 250
21.82
2016/17
KENSINGTON
1 065
21.64
2017/18
GRASSY PARK
1 020
21.46
CONSTANTIA
300
21.01
CAPE TOWN
225
20.82
MELKBOSSTRAND
685
19.81
2017/18
BLACKHEATH
955
19.62
2017/18
CAPE TOWN
1 900
17.86
KRAAIFONTEIN
40 481
17.70
2017/18
TABLE VIEW
2 423
15.65
2018/19
CAPE TOWN
320
15.56
2018/19
GRASSY PARK
350
15.07
CONSTANTIA
6 250
14.37
2018/19
CAPE TOWN
375
12.58
2018/19
GRASSY PARK
620
12.52
2018/19
KRAAIFONTEIN
MITCHELLS PLAIN
12.5
PAROW
1 180
11.23
GRASSY PARK
3 700
11.20
2015/16
yes
2015/16
2015/16
YES & DMA
yes
YES & DMA
2016/17
2016/17
2017/18
2017/18
yes
yes
YES & DMA
Partially
2017/18
2017/18
2018/19
2018/19
2018/19
YES & DMA
2018/19
73
BLACKHEATH
2 174
11.04
2018/19
DURBANVILLE
2 400
9.85
2018/19
TABLE VIEW
1 105
9.69
2019/20
ATHLONE
70 800
9.25
OCEAN VIEW
4 400
8.57
2019/20
OCEAN VIEW
3 200
7.64
2019/20
PAROW
810
7.61
2019/20
PAROW
90
7.05
2019/20
OCEAN VIEW
800
6.55
2019/20
PINELANDS
1 697
6.48
GRASSY PARK
3 550
6.21
GOODWOOD
1 635
5.99
BLACKHEATH
4 054
5.35
2020/21
GOODWOOD
1 860
5.31
2020/21
893
4.89
PAROW
1 325
3.90
GOODWOOD
1 320
2.97
CONSTANTIA
730
2.82
2020/21
BELLVILLE
580
2.76
2021/22
HELDERBERG
160
1.76
EERSTE RIVER
3 090
1.70
2021/22
ATHLONE
44 740
1.68
2021/22
BELLVILLE
1 600
1.31
2021/22
GRASSY PARK
350
0.30
2021/22
DIDO VALLEY
860
0.03
ATLANTIS
YES & DMA
yes
2019/20
2020/21
2020/21
YES & DMA
yes (to be
recommissioned)
2020/21
2020/21
2020/21
YES & DMA
yes
yes
2020/21
2021/22
2021/22
74
ANNEXURE 3:
FIVE YEAR LEAK DETECTION
(PROPOSED – TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN 2013/14)
NOTE: Initially, the five year leak detection plan was developed in 2010. It has not been
implemented as yet. Implementation will commence in 2013/14 financial year.
75
Year
Area
Proposed Budget
R million
2012/13
Kalkfontein
R 0.13
Brentwood
R 0.01
Bishop Lavis
R 0.14
Bonteheuwel
R 0.48
Proposed Budget
R million
2013/14
Cross Roads
R 0.07
Delf
R 0.33
Belhar
R 0.22
Fisantekraal
R 0.02
Proposed Budget
R million
2014/15
Marina da Gama
R 0.06
Gugulethu
R 0.26
Eerste River
R 0.33
Proposed Budget
R million
2015/16
Plumstead
R 0.06
Retreat
R 0.26
Grassy Park
R 0.33
Proposed Budget
R million
2016/17
Monte Vista
R 0.19
Goodwood
R 0.23
Thornton
R 0.05
Pinelands
R 0.13
Proposed Budget
R million
2017/18
76
Year
Area
Proposed Budget
R million
2012/13
Proposed Budget
R million
2013/14
Proposed Budget
R million
2014/15
Proposed Budget
R million
2015/16
Proposed Budget
R million
2016/17
Proposed Budget
R million
2017/18
Mfuleni
R 0.10
Wesbank
R 0.02
Phillipi
R 0.18
Langa
R 0.06
Total
R 0.8
R 0.6
R 0.6
R 0.6
R 0.6
R 0.4
77
ANNEXURE 4:
FIVE YEAR PIPE REPLACEMENT PROGRAMME
(EXPANDED) AS PER DISTRICT
78
DISTRICT 1
Table 22: 2012/13 Pipe Replacement Budget
Replace/Upsize/
Upgrade
Replace
Replace
Replace
Area
Helderberg
Helderberg
Helderberg
Suburb
SOMERSET WEST
SOMERSET WEST
SOMERSET WEST
Street Address
Length (m)
Oleander & Prunus
465
Fairthorne – Somerset West
1500
Andries Pretorius
150
Otto du Plessis, Robin & Loerie
855
Pipe Size
Existing
Pipe
Material
New Pipe
Material
Estimated
Replacement
Costs
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 465 000
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 1 500 000
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 150 000
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 855 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Silwerboomkloof
600
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 600 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
MAIN
320
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 320 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
FIRMOUNT
480
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 480 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
PINEGROVE
390
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 390 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
GORDON
300
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 300 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
LOURENS
415
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 415 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
AC
HDPE
R 440 000
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
440
600
110 mm
Replace
PANORAMA
Dummer – Somerset West
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 600 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
VICTORIA
370
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 370 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
HENDRIKSZ
380
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 380 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
PARIS
200
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 200 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
RESERVOIR
504
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 504 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
DRAMA
315
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 315 000
Replace
Helderberg
GORDON'S BAY
BEACH ROAD
160
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 160 000
Replace
Helderberg
340
1540
AC
HDPE
R 340 000
Eerste River
ANDRIES PRETORIUS
Laurimer
110 mm
Replace
SOMERSET WEST
Penhill
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 1 540 000
Karen, Madeleine & Jennifer
1174
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 1 174 000
Forest & Bosch
1040
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 1 040 000
Replace
Replace
Blackheath
Kuilsriver
Gaylee
Voelvlei - Sarepta
79
Replace
Replace
Replace
Kuilsriver
Eerste River
Kuilsriver
Oakdene,Des Hampden
Penhill
Voelvlei - Sarepta
Grove, Thayser, Rietvlei
955
Dyke , Gourley & Hawke
1550
Hill & Dune
1088
16 131
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 955 000
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 1 550 000
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 1 088 000
R 16 131 000
80
Table 23: 2013/14 Pipe Replacement Budget
Replace/Upsize/
Upgrade
Area
Suburb
Street Address
Length (m)
Pipe Size
Existing Pipe
Material
New Pipe
Material
Estimated
Replacement Costs
Replace
Kuilsriver
Voelvlei - Sarepta
Dreyer, Havenga,Daisy,Alexis,etc
1336
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 1 336 000
Replace
Kuilsriver
Sarepta
AC
HDPE
R 590 000
Blackheath
Gaylee
590
1000
110 mm
Replace
Mission
Margaret,Rowena
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 1 000 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
BATAVIA
790
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 790 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
HELDERZICHT
750
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 750 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
RUE MONTPELLIER
470
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 470 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
MOUNTAIN
320
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 320 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
MYBURGH
540
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 540 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
HILLCREST
250
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 250 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
SUIKERBEKKIE
370
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 370 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
IRENE
350
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 350 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
ACACIA
660
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 660 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
LWR LOURENS
230
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 230 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
SMUTS
270
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 270 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
ECCLESTONE
410
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 410 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Ruimsig, Uitzig, View Mount
768
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 768 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Panorama Road
510
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 510 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Criselda Road
280
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 280 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Runkel Drive
760
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 760 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Berrydell Road
625
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 625 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Frangipani Road - SW
580
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 580 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Rue le Harve Road
250
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 250 000
12 109
R 12 109 000
81
DISTRICT 2
Table 24: 2012/13 Pipe Replacement Budget
Replace/Upsize/
Upgrade
Area
Suburb
Street Address
Length (m)
Pipe Size
Existing Pipe
Material
New Pipe
Material
Estimated
Replacement Costs
Replace
Goodwood
Bothasig
Kompanje & Maurituis
440
110
FC
HDPE
R 332 000
Replace
Parow
Elsies River
Arnold
90
150
FC
uPVC
R 85 500
Replace
Goodwood
Bothasig
Steenoven btwn Batvia & Mydrecht
430
200
FC
uPVC
R 408 500
Replace
Parow
Ravensmead
Webner btwn 1st & 4th Ave
265
150
FC
uPVC
R 250 000
Replace
Parow
Panorama
Hendrik Verwoerd
230
110
FC
uPVC
R 220 000
Replace
Goodwood
Bothasig
Bax
160
110
FC
HDPE
R 128 000
Replace
Goodwood
Bothasig
Crudop
420
110
FC
HDPE
R 336 000
Replace
Parow
Ravensmead
Christiaan
560
150
FC
HDPE
R 448 000
Replace
Bellville
Boston
11th Ave
290
110
FC
HDPE
R 261 000
Replace
Goodwood
Bonteheuwel
Apricot btwn Bessie & Als
695
110
FC
HDPE
R 556 000
Replace
Parow
Parow North
Emily Hobhouse
570
110
FC
uPVC
R 545 000
Replace
Parow
Parow Valley
Market btwn Taylor & Connaught
240
110
FC
HDPE
R 192 000
Replace
Goodwood
Bothasig
Wagenaar
180
110
FC
HDPE
R 144 000
4570
R 3 906 000
82
Table 25: 2014/15 Pipe Replacement Budget
Replace/Upsize/
Upgrade
Area
Suburb
Street Address
Length (m)
Pipe Size
Existing Pipe
Material
New Pipe
Material
Estimated
Replacement Costs
Replace
Bellville
Boston
14th Ave
290
110
FC
HDPE
R 261 000
Replace
Bellville
Bellville
Broadway
340
110
FC
HDPE
R 306 000
Replace
Bellville
Bellville
Barnard
1260
160
FC
HDPE
R 1 134 000
Replace
Parow
Ravensmead
Pinedene
500
110
FC
HDPE
R 450 000
Replace
Parow
Panorama
Sering btwn Bloch & Calendon
160
110
FC
HDPE
R 144 000
Replace
Parow
Panorama
Bloekom btwn Bloch & Akasia
150
110
FC
HDPE
R 135 000
Replace
Parow
Panorama
Alk van Zyl
340
160
FC
HDPE
R 306 000
Replace
Parow
Parnorama
Mozart
300
110
FC
HDPE
R 270 000
Replace
Goodwood
Goodwood
Orchid
400
110
FC
HDPE
R 360 000
Replace
Goodwood
Bothsig
Huising
230
110
FC
HDPE
R 210 000
Replace
Goodwood
Goodwood
Smartt
235
110
FC
HDPE
R 215 000
Replace
Goodwood
Goodwood
Steward
220
110
FC
HDPE
R 200 000
Replace
Goodwood
Goodwood
Botha
110
110
FC
HDPE
R 99 000
Replace
Goodwood
Bonteheuwel
Jakkelvlei
265
110
FC
HDPE
R 240 000
Replace
Goodwood
Bonteheuwel
Camelia
160
110
FC
HDPE
R 144 000
Replace
Goodwood
Bonteheuwel
Bramble
200
110
FC
HDPE
R 180 000
Replace
Goodwood
Goodwood
De Wet
335
110
FC
HDPE
R 305 000
Replace
Goodwood
Goodwood
Wallace
335
110
FC
HDPE
R 305 000
5 830
R 5 264 000
83
DISTRICT 2
Table 26: 2012/13 Pipe Replacement Budget
Replace/Upsize/
Upgrade
Area
Suburb
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Replace
Replace
Helderberg
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
SOMERSET WEST
Street Address
Length (m)
Oleander & Prunus
465
Fairthorne – Somerset West
1500
Andries Pretorius
150
Otto du Plessis, Robin & Loerie
855
Pipe Size
Existing
Pipe
Material
New Pipe
Material
Estimated
Replacement
Costs
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 465 000
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 1 500 000
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 150 000
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 855 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Silwerboomkloof
600
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 600 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
MAIN
320
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 320 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
FIRMOUNT
480
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 480 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
PINEGROVE
390
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 390 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
GORDON
300
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 300 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
LOURENS
415
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 415 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
AC
HDPE
R 440 000
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
440
600
110 mm
Replace
PANORAMA
Dummer – Somerset West
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 600 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
VICTORIA
370
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 370 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
HENDRIKSZ
380
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 380 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
PARIS
200
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 200 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
RESERVOIR
504
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 504 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
DRAMA
315
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 315 000
Replace
Helderberg
GORDON'S BAY
BEACH ROAD
160
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 160 000
Replace
Helderberg
340
1540
AC
HDPE
R 340 000
Eerste River
ANDRIES PRETORIUS
Laurimer
110 mm
Replace
SOMERSET WEST
Penhill
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 1 540 000
Karen, Madeleine & Jennifer
1174
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 1 174 000
Replace
Blackheath
Gaylee
84
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Kuilsriver
Kuilsriver
Eerste River
Kuilsriver
Voelvlei - Sarepta
Oakdene,Des Hampden
Penhill
Voelvlei - Sarepta
Forest & Bosch
1040
Grove, Thayser, Rietvlei
955
Dyke , Gourley & Hawke
1550
Hill & Dune
1088
16 131
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 1 040 000
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 955 000
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 1 550 000
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 1 088 000
R 16 131 000
85
Table 27: 2013/14 Pipe Replacement Budget
Replace/Upsize/
Upgrade
Area
Suburb
Street Address
Length (m)
Pipe Size
Existing Pipe
Material
New Pipe
Material
Estimated
Replacement Costs
Replace
Kuilsriver
Voelvlei - Sarepta
Dreyer, Havenga,Daisy,Alexis,etc
1336
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 1 336 000
Replace
Kuilsriver
Sarepta
AC
HDPE
R 590 000
Blackheath
Gaylee
590
1000
110 mm
Replace
Mission
Margaret,Rowena
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 1 000 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
BATAVIA
790
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 790 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
HELDERZICHT
750
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 750 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
RUE MONTPELLIER
470
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 470 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
MOUNTAIN
320
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 320 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
MYBURGH
540
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 540 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
HILLCREST
250
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 250 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
SUIKERBEKKIE
370
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 370 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
IRENE
350
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 350 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
ACACIA
660
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 660 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
LWR LOURENS
230
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 230 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
SMUTS
270
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 270 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
ECCLESTONE
410
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 410 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Ruimsig, Uitzig, View Mount
768
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 768 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Panorama Road
510
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 510 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Criselda Road
280
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 280 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Runkel Drive
760
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 760 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Berrydell Road
625
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 625 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Frangipani Road - SW
580
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 580 000
Replace
Helderberg
SOMERSET WEST
Rue le Harve Road
250
110 mm
AC
HDPE
R 250 000
12 109
R 12 109 000
86
DISTRICT 6
Table 28: 2012/13 Pipe Replacement Budget
Replace/Upsize/
Upgrade
Area
Suburb
UPGRADE
EIKENDAL
KRAAIFONTEIN
UPGRADE
EIKENDAL
KRAAIFONTEIN
Length (m)
Pipe Size
Existing
Pipe
Material
New Pipe
Material
Estimated
Replacement
Costs
OLD PAARL ROAD
1 860
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 1 500 000
VAN RIEBEECK ROAD
1 100
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 700 000
2 005
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 1 200 000
1 770
150/75mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 1 200 000
Street Address
UPGRADE
EIKENDAL
KRAAIFONTEIN
REPLACE
EIKENDAL
KRAAIFONTEIN
VAN DER ROSS,- PETERSEN,VERSTER,- SENDING,- DA GAMA,PETERSEN
ALICE,- RECREATION,- PERTH,- 9TH
AV,- 10TH AV
,- 11TH AV
REPLACE
PEERLESS PARK EAST
KRAAIFONTEIN
MULLER,- STEYTLER,- HOFF,- RAAN
1 820
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 1 200 000
REPLACE
PEERLESS PARK EAST
KRAAIFONTEIN
HORAK,- CONROY,- VISSER,- WAPNICK
1 810
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 1 200 000
REPLACE
SCOTTSVILLE
KRAAIFONTEIN
MILTON ROAD
1 360
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 900 000
REPLACE
SCOTTSVILLE
KRAAIFONTEIN
MILNER ROAD
1 155
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 760 000
REPLACE
SCOTTSVILLE
KRAAIFONTEIN
ALFRED ROAD
680
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 450 000
REPLACE
SCOTTSVILLE
KRAAIFONTEIN
BEZUIDENHOUT,- CONRADIE,- KROM,DUINE,- ERASMUS,- FICK,- GRAAFF
1 500
50 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 990 000
REPLACE
SCOTTSVILLE
KRAAIFONTEIN
IVANHOE,- JAKARANDA,- KOTZE
1 240
50 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 820 000
REPLACE
SCOTTSVILLE
KRAAIFONTEIN
LOOP,- MIDWAY
1 000
50 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 660 000
REPLACE
SCOTTSVILLE
KRAAIFONTEIN
SNELL,- TITUS
1 155
50 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 760 000
REPLACE
SCOTTSVILLE
KRAAIFONTEIN
UITSPAN,- VLEI,- WESLEY,- TIGER
1 220
50 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 805 200
REPLACE
SCOTTSVILLE
KRAAIFONTEIN
3RD AV,- LONG STR,- 12TH AV
810
150/50mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 550 000
REPLACE
MORGENSTER
BRCKENFELL
AMANDA STREET
714
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 500 000
REPLACE
SANDDRIFT
MILNERTON
ECLIPSE
820
100 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 550 000
87
BELLVILLE
Upgrade
Bellville
Eversdal
Kendal Road
690
110mmØ
AC PIPE
HDPE
R 621 000
Upgrade
Bellville
Eversdal
Edmond Rostrand
436
110mmØ
AC PIPE
HDPE
R 392 400
1 200
225/250mmØ
AC PIPE
HDPE
R 1 200 000
DURBANVILLE
Upsize/Upgrade
Durbanville
Durbanville
Koeberg Road
Upsize/Upgrade
Durbanville
Kenridge
De Villiers Street
800
125/ 150Ø
AC PIPE
HDPE
R 800 000
Upgrade
Durbanville
Vierlanden
Botterblom Street
800
110Ø
AC PIPE
HDPE
R 800 000
Upgrade
Durbanville
Vierlanden
Boland Street
1 000
150Ø
AC PIPE
HDPE
R 1 000 000
Upgrade
Durbanville
Sonstraal Heights
Ibis Street
350
150Ø
AC PIPE
HDPE
R 350 000
TABLE VIEW
Upgrade
Table View
Table View
Arum Road
462
110mmØ
AC PIPE
HDPE
R 420 000
Upgrade
Table View
Table View
Raats Drive
150
110mmØ
AC PIPE
HDPE
R 140 000
MILNERTON
Upgrade
Milnerton
Milnerton
Riverside Drive
275
110mmØ
AC PIPE
HDPE
R 250 000
Upgrade
Milnerton
Milnerton
Boundary Road
830
110mmØ
AC PIPE
HDPE
R 750 000
29 012
R 21 468 600
88
Table 29: 2013/14 Pipe Replacement Budget
Replace/Upsize/
Upgrade
REPLACE
REPLACE
REPLACE
REPLACE
REPLACE
REPLACE
Area
Bellville
Bellville
Durbanville
Durbanville
Durbanville
Durbanville
Suburb
Street Address
Length (m)
Pipe Size
Existing
Pipe
Material
New Pipe Material
Estimated Replacement
Costs
690
110
AC
HDPE
R 99 000
436
110
AC
HDPE
R 99 000
1 200
225 / 250
AC
HDPE
R 1 200 000
800
125 / 150
AC
HDPE
R 800 000
800
110
AC
HDPE
R 110 000
AC
HDPE
R 150 000
HDPE
R 150 000
Eversdal
Kendal Rd
Eversdal
Edmond Rostrand
Durbanville
Koeberg Street
Kenridge
De Villiers Street
Vierlanden
Botterblom Street Street
Vierlanden
Boland Street
1 000
150
350
150
AC
REPLACE
Durbanville
Sonstraal Heights
Ibis Street
Upgrade
Table View
Table View
Blaauwberg Road
700
110mm Ø
AC PIPE
R 630 000
Upgrade
Table View
Table View
Pearson Road
390
110mm Ø
AC PIPE
R 351 000
Upgrade
Table View
Table View
Schreiner Road
521
110mm Ø
AC PIPE
R 470 000
Upgrade
Table View
Tabe View
Merriman Road
200
110mm Ø
AC PIPE
R 180 000
Upgrade
Duynefontein
Duynefontein
Carmicheal Street
216
110mm Ø
AC PIPE
R 195 000
Upgrade
Duynefontein
Duynefontein
Barker Street
245
110mm Ø
AC PIPE
R 220 000
Upgrade
Duynefontein
Duynefontein
Bresford Street
145
110mm Ø
AC PIPE
R 135 000
Upgrade
Duynefontein
Duynefontein
Drommedaris St
490
110mm Ø
AC PIPE
R 442 000
Upgrade
Duynefontein
Duynefontein
Drommedaris St
470
110mm Ø
AC PIPE
R 420 000
Upgrade
Melkbosstrand
Melkbosstrand
First Avenue
685
110mm Ø
AC PIPE
R 610 000
Upgrade
Atlantis
Atlantis
Adenium Street
521
110mm Ø
AC PIPE
R 460 000
Upgrade
Atllantis
Atllantis
Azalea Street
372
110mm Ø
AC PIPE
R 335 000
10 231
R 7 056 000
89
Table 30: 2014/15 Pipe Replacement Budget
Replace/Upsize/
Upgrade
Existing
Pipe
Material
New Pipe Material
Estimated
Replacement Costs
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 715 000
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 1 232 000
1 070
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 1 177 000
LIVINGSTONE
1 020
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 1 122 000
KRAAIFONTEIN
HILL
1 200
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 1 320 000
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
SELBOURNE
750
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 825 000
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
DE JAGER
720
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 792 000
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
BYRON
670
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 737 000
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
JANNIE ROSSOUW
790
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 869 000
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
TENANT
695
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 764 500
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
BISSET
630
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 693 000
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
TANNER
550
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 605 000
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
GRANT
480
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 528 000
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
TURNER
400
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 440 000
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
BALFOUR
340
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 374 000
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
JAMESON
250
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 275 000
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
KITCHENER
170
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 187 000
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
YORK
950
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 1 045 000
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
DARWIN
1 700
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 1 870 000
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
BENNET
300
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 330 000
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
KIPLING
1 000
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 1 100 000
Area
Suburb
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
REPLACE
Street Address
Length (m)
Pipe Size
SHELLEY
650
75 mm
KRAAIFONTEIN
EDWARD
1 120
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
VICTORIA
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
REPLACE
WINDSOR PARK
REPLACE
90
REPLACE
ZOO PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
HIPPO
610
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 671 000
REPLACE
ZOO PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
WALLABY
600
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 660 000
REPLACE
ZOO PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
TIGER
2 120
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 2 332 000
REPLACE
ZOO PARK
KRAAIFONTEIN
75 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
18 785
R 20 663 500
Table 31: 2015/16 Pipe Replacement Budget
Replace/Upsize/
Upgrade
Length (m)
Pipe Size
Existing
Pipe
Material
New Pipe Material
Estimated
Replacement Costs
BRACKENFELL
6 945
50 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 10 417 500
BRACKENFELL
BRACKENFELL
2 800
63 mm
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 4 200 000
BRACKENFELL
BRACKENFELL
BRACKENFELL
24 336
75
ASBESTOS
HDPE
R 36 504 000
BRACKENFELL
BRACKENFELL
BRACKENFELL
6 400
100
ASBESTOS
HDPE
Area
Suburb
UPSIZE
BRACKENFELL
BRACKENFELL
UPSIZE
BRACKENFELL
UPSIZE
UPSIZE
Street Address
40 481
R 9 600 000
R 60 721 500
91
DISTRICTS 5. 7 and 8
Table 32: 2012/13 Pipe Replacement Budget
Replace/Upsize/
Upgrade
Suburb
Street Address
Length (m)
Pipe Size
Existing Pipe
Material
Pipe Material
Estimated
Replacement Costs
Replace
LANSDOWNE
HEATHERLEY RD
930
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 930 000
Replace
CLAREMONT
HARDING RD
250
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 250 000
Replace
PINELANDS
THE CROSSING
542
100 MM
HDPE
UPVC
R 542 000
Replace
CRAWFORD
ROKEBY RD
769
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 769 000
Replace
HANOVER PARK
VARIOUS ROADS PHASE 1
3 065
110 MM
FC
HDPE
R 3 065 000
Replace
SILVERTOWN
KLIPFONTEIN RD
770
110 MM
FC
HDPE
R 770 000
Replace
PINELANDS
SERPERTINE RD
370
100 MM
HDPE
UPVC
R 370 000
Replace
RONDEBOSCH
LOVERS WALK
650
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 650 000
Replace
WOODSTOCK
BROMWELL RD
750
100 MM
CI
UPVC
R 750 000
Replace
SEA POINT
RHINE RD
513
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 513 000
Replace
WOODSTOCK
WILLIAM STR
443
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 443 000
Replace
NEWLANDS
MILL STR
270
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 270 000
Replace
LANSDOWNE
ALMAR RD
445
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 445 000
Replace
CLAREMONT
MATTHEW
190
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 190 000
Replace
ROSEBANK
WOLMUNSTER
245
100 MM
CICL
UPVC
R 245 000
Replace
LANSDOWNE
ARCADIA
180
100MM
FC
UPVC
R 180 000
Replace
MANENBERG
KEI RD
740
100 MM
AC
UPVC
R 740 000
Replace
RONDEBOSCH
WHITE
270
100 MM
AC
UPVC
R 270 000
Replace
PINELANDS
SUNNYWAY
465
100 MM
HDPE
UPVC
R 465 000
Replace
MAITLAND
HELY STR
865
100 MM
CICL
UPVC
R 865 000
Replace
LANSDOWNE
BELGRAVIA AVE
450
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 450 000
Replace
OBSERVATORY
HOWE STR
375
160 MM
CI
UPVC
R 375 000
92
Replace
CLAREMONT
SUFFOLK STR
150
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 150 000
Replace
LANSDOWNE
WURBURG RD
410
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 410 000
Replace
KENWYN
BLANKEN RD
500
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 500 000
Replace
SEA POINT
WORCESTER RD
245
100 MM
CICL
UPVC
R 245 000
Replace
MAITLAND
MCGREGOR RD
200
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 200 000
Replace
KENILWORTH
ARCHIE
101
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 101 000
Replace
SILVERTOWN
CLOVER
446
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 446 000
15 599
R 15 599 000
Table 33: 2013/14 Pipe Replacement Budget
Replace/Upsize/
Upgrade
Suburb
Street Address
Length (m)
Pipe Size
Existing Pipe
Material
Pipe Material
Estimated
Replacement Costs
Replace
SCHAAP KRAAL
BOOM RD
1 270
50 MM
FC
UPVC
R 1 270 000
Replace
RONDEBOSCH
SANDOWN RD
1 500
100MM
FC
UPVC
R 1 500 000
Replace
RONDEBOSCH
SHAW RD
300
100MM
FC
UPVC
R 300 000
Replace
RONDEBOSCH
GRAHAM RD
500
100MM
CICL
UPVC
R 500 000
Replace
KENSINGTON
9TH AVENUE
1 100
100MM
CICL
UPVC
R 1 100 000
Replace
WOODSTOCK
DUBLIN STR
170
150 MM
AC
UPVC
R 170 000
Replace
ATHLONE
ELIZABETH DR
1 350
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 1 350 000
Replace
RONDEBOSCH
BELMONT RD
930
225 MM
CICL
UPVC
R 930 000
Replace
CRAWFORD
LAWSEN RD
1 200
100MM
FC
UPVC
R 1 200 000
Replace
CAMPS BAY
GENEVA DR
500
100 MM
CICL
UPVC
R 500 000
Replace
NDABENI
OUDE MOLEN RD
1 380
225 MM
CICL
UPVC
R 1 380 000
Replace
BISHOPSCOURT
CHESTER RD
1 500
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 1 500 000
Replace
BISHOPSCOURT
NORWICH DR
1 000
150 MM
FC
UPVC
R 1 000 000
93
Replace
BELGRAVIA
THIRD AVE
600
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 600 000
Replace
CAMPS BAY
CHAS BOOTH RD
500
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 500 000
Replace
CAPE TOWN
BUITEN KANT STR
1 500
100 MM
CICL
UPVC
R 1 500 000
Replace
ATHLONE
GENERAL STR
450
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 450 000
Replace
FACTRETON
VENTURA STR
760
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 760 000
Replace
BELGRAVIA
FOURTH AVE
1 000
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 1 000 000
Replace
MANENBERG
VARIOUS RDS
11 000
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 1 100 000
Replace
HANOVER PARK
VARIOUS RDS
7 200
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 7 200 000
Replace
GUGULETHU
VARIOUS RDS
17 700
150 MM
FC
UPVC
R 17 700 000
Replace
SCHAAP KRAAL
SPRINGFIELD ROAD
2 280
75 MM
FC
UPVC
R 2 280 000
55 690
R 45 790 000
94
Table 34: 2014/15 Pipe Replacement Budget
Replace/Upsize/
Upgrade
Suburb
Street Address
Length (m)
Pipe Size
Existing Pipe
Material
Pipe Material
Estimated
Replacement Costs
Replace
MANENBERG
VARIOUS RDS
11 000
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 11 000 000
Replace
HANOVER PARK
VARIOUS RDS
7 200
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 7 200 000
Replace
GUGULETHU
VARIOUS RDS
17 700
150 MM
FC
UPVC
R 17 700 000
Replace
CAMPS BAY
GENEVA DR
550
150MM
CICL
UPVC
550 000
Replace
ATHLONE
GLEEMOOR RD
342
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 342 000
Replace
ATHLONE
KAYTER RD
135
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 135 000
Replace
ATHLONE
LASCELLES STR
450
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 450 000
Replace
ATHLONE
MASSEY AVE
500
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 500 000
Replace
ATHLONE
TELFORD RD
135
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 135 000
Replace
BELGRAVIA
RUST RD
730
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 730 000
Replace
BELTHORNE
CENTRAL AVE
495
150 MM
FC
UPVC
R 495 000
Replace
BELTHORNE
WELMAR RD
600
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 600 000
Replace
CLAREMONT
HERSHELL WALK
1 010
100 MM
CICL
UPVC
R 1 010 000
Replace
CAPE TOWN
BLOEM
400
100 MM
CICL
UPVC
R 400 000
Replace
CAMPS BAY
MEDBURN
250
100 MM
CICL
UPVC
R 250 000
Replace
CAMPS BAY
CLIFTON RD
270
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 270 000
Replace
CAMPS BAY
HOVE RD
450
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 450 000
42 217
R 5 767 000
95
Table 35: 2015/16 Pipe Replacement Budget
Replace/Upsize/
Upgrade
Suburb
Street Address
Length (m)
Pipe Size
Existing
Pipe
Material
Pipe Material
Estimated
Replacement
Costs
Reason for failure
Replace
MANENBERG
VARIOUS RDS
11 000
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 11 000 000
Burst
Replace
HANOVER PARK
VARIOUS RDS
7 200
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 7 200 000
Burst
Replace
GUGULETHU
VARIOUS RDS
17 700
150 MM
FC
UPVC
R 17 700 000
Burst
Replace
SCHOTSCHEKLOOF
PENTZ RD
530
100 MM
CI
UPVC
R 530 000
Burst
Replace
RYLANDS
TUSSEN RD
900
100 MM
FC
UPVC
900 000
Burst
Replace
KENSINGTON
WINGFIELD
1 500
100 MM
AC
UPVC
R 1 500 000
Burst
Replace
CLAREMONT
WARRINGTON RD
650
150 MM
FC
UPVC
R 650 000
Burst
Replace
KENILWORTH
BELL RD
450
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 450 000
Burst
Replace
WOODSTOCK
DRAKLOW STR
120
100 MM
CI
UPVC
R 120 000
Burst
Replace
NEWLANDS
CHERRY CLOSE/STR
350
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 350 000
Burst
Replace
SEA POINT
ROCKLANDS RD
250
100 MM
CI
UPVC
R 250 000
Burst
Replace
MOWBRAY
STRUBENS RD
940
100 MM
AC
UPVC
R 940 000
Burst
Replace
KENSINGTON
GOLIATH
250
100 MM
AC
UPVC
R 250 000
Burst
Replace
PINELANDS
NORTH WALK
320
110 MM
HDPE
UPVC
R 320 000
Burst
Replace
RONDEBOSCH
STANLEY RD
300
150 MM
AC
UPVC
R 300 000
Burst
Replace
ROSEBANK
LIESBEECK RD
475
100 MM
CICL
UPVC
R 475 000
Burst
42 935
R 42 035 000
96
Table 36: 2016/17 Pipe Replacement Budget
Replace/Upsize/
Upgrade
Suburb
Street Address
Length (m)
Pipe Size
Existing Pipe
Material
Pipe Material
Estimated
Replacement Costs
Replace
MANENBERG
VARIOUS RDS
11000
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 11 000 000
Replace
HANOVER PARK
VARIOUS RDS
7200
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 7 200 000
Replace
GUGULETHU
VARIOUS RDS
17700
150 MM
FC
UPVC
R 17 700 000
Replace
RONDEBOSCH
OCEAN VIEW DR
1 800
100MM
CICL
UPVC
R 1 800 000
Replace
BANTRY BAY
CRAIGROWNIE RD
150
100 MM
CICL
UPVC
R 150 000
Replace
NEWLANDS
PEACH LANE
150
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 150 000
Replace
TAMBOERSKLOOF
CAMDEN RD
225
100 MM
CICL
UPVC
R 225 000
Replace
ATHLONE
CRAVEN AVE
150
100 MM
CICL
UPVC
R 150 000
Replace
ATHLONE
CRANLEY RD
200
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 200 000
Replace
KENSINGTON
SIXTH AVE
870
150 MM
CICL
UPVC
R 870 000
Replace
KENSINGTON
8TH AVE
820
100 MM
AC
UPVC
R 820 000
Replace
KENSINGTON
11TH AVE
200
150 MM
AC
UPVC
R 200 000
Replace
FORESHORE
DORSET
300
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 300 000
Replace
SALT RIVER
TENNYSON STR
320
100 MM
CICL
UPVC
R 320 000
Replace
RYLANDS
MIDDEL RD
620
100 MM
FC
UPVC
R 620 000
41705
R 41 705 000
97
ANNEXURE 5:
FIVE YEAR TREATED EFFLUENT UPGRADES
(proposed)
98
Tender/ RFQ description
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
12/13
R 13 900 000
R 12 800
000
Maccassar TE
WDM 7: Treated effluent Extension in de
beers avenue and Birkenhead street
(Macassar extensions)
R 1 300 000
WDM 8: Coastal Road
R 1 500 000
Treated effluent Extension in to end users
(Macassar extensions)
R 4 000 000
Treated effluent Extension in to end users
(Macassar extensions 2)
R 18 000 000
R 8 000 000
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
14/15
R 33 700 000
R 8 000 000
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
15/16
R 29 700 000
R-
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
16/17
R 44 700 000
R-
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
17/18
R 44 200 000
R-
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
18/19
R 26 700 000
R-
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
19/20
R 30 700 000
R-
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
20/21
R 40 700 000
R-
R 8 000 000
Treated effluent Extension in to end users
(Macassar extensions 3)
Treated effluent Extension in to upgrade
capacity 400mm
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
13/14
R 8 000 000
R 6 000 000
99
Tender/ RFQ description
Athlone TE
Athlone directional drilling
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
12/13
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
13/14
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
14/15
R 1 100 000
R 7 700 000
R 7 700 000
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
15/16
R 13 700 000
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
16/17
R 7 700 000
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
19/20
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
20/21
R 700 000
R 700 000
R 700 000
R 700 000
R 700 000
R 700 000
R 700 000
R 700 000
R 7 000 000
Extensions to existing treated effluent
reticulation: Athlone phase 2
R 13 000
000
Extensions to existing treated effluent
reticulation: Athlone phase 1 section 3
R 4 000 000
R 4 000 000
Extensions to existing treated effluent
reticulation: Athlone phase 1 section 4
R 3 000 000
R 3 000 000
Consultant appointment for Treated effluent
feasibility design and site supervision
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
18/19
R 400 000
Athlone Treated Effluent extension to Parow
Consultant appointment for Treated effluent
feasibility design and site supervision
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
17/18
R 700 000
R 700 000
R 700 000
R 700 000
R 700 000
100
Tender/ RFQ description
Potsdam TE
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
12/13
R0
Potsdam extensions
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
13/14
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
14/15
R 2 000 000
R 2 000 000
Bellville TE
R0
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
16/17
R0
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
17/18
R0
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
18/19
R0
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
19/20
R0
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
20/21
R0
R 2 000 000
Potsdam Pressure management
Tender/ RFQ description
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
15/16
R 2 000 000
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
12/13
R0
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
13/14
R0
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
14/15
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
15/16
R 13 000 000
R 13 000 000
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
16/17
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
17/18
R 6 000 000
R 7 000 000
R 6 000 000
R 4 000 000
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
18/19
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
19/20
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
20/21
R 15 000 000
R 2 000 000
Extensions to existing treated effluent
reticulation: Bellville phase 3
R 9 000 000
R 2 000 000
Extensions to existing treated effluent
reticulation: Bellville phase 4
R 3 000 000
R 10 000 000
R 3 000 000
R 3 000 000
Bellville Treated Effluent phase 1
R 13 000 000
Extensions to existing treated effluent
reticulation: Bellville phase 2
New & upgrades of Treated effluent Pump
station and filtration plant at WWTW
R 13 000 000
R 13 000 000
R 3 000 000
101
Tender/ RFQ description
Cape Flats TE
Cape Flats Treated Effluent phase 1
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
12/13
R0
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
13/14
R0
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
14/15
R0
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
15/16
R0
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
16/17
R 28 000 000
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
17/18
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
18/19
R 4 000 000
R 4 000 000
R 4 000 000
R 4 000 000
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
19/20
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
20/21
R 15 000 000
R 17 000 000
R 13 000 000
Extensions to existing treated effluent
reticulation: Cape Flats phase 2
Extensions to existing treated effluent
reticulation: Cape Flats phase 3
R 12 000 000
Extensions to existing treated effluent
reticulation: Cape Flats phase 4
New & upgrades of Treated effluent Pump
station and filtration plant at WWTW
R 14 000 000
R 15 000 000
R 3 000 000
R 3 000 000
102
Tender/ RFQ description
Mitchell's plain TE
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
12/13
R0
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
13/14
R0
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
14/15
R0
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
15/16
R0
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
16/17
R0
Mitchell's plain Treated Effluent phase 1
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
17/18
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
18/19
R 29 500 000
R 4 000 000
R 13 000 000
R 4 000 000
Extensions to existing treated effluent
reticulation: Mitchell's plain phase 2
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
19/20
R 10 000 000
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
20/21
R 7 000 000
R 10 000 000
Extensions to existing treated effluent
reticulation: Mitchell's plain phase 3
R 7 000 000
Extensions to existing treated effluent
reticulation: Mitchell's plain phase 4
New & upgrades of Treated effluent Pump
station and filtration plant at WWTW
Tender/ RFQ description
Other TE projects
Metering of all Treated effluent users
Maintenance & upgrades of Treated effluent
Pump station and filtration plant at various
WWTW
R 16 500 000
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
12/13
R0
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
13/14
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
14/15
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
15/16
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
16/17
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
17/18
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
18/19
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
19/20
Estimated
Cost of
Budget
20/21
R 300 000
R 3 000 000
R 3 000 000
R 3 000 000
R 3 000 000
R 3 000 000
R 3 000 000
R 3 000 000
R 300 000
R 3 000 000
R 3 000 000
R 3 000 000
R 3 000 000
R 3 000 000
R 3 000 000
R 3 000 000
103
Table 37: Potential New Treated Effluent Users
Potential
New
TE end users
Date of
Request
Type of Business/
Use
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Housing /
2012/03/12 Commercial
2012/04/04 School
Housing /
2012/04/04 Commercial
Housing /
2012/03/14 Commercial
2012/02/08 Industrial
2012/02/23 Commercial
2012/01/19 Cemetry / City
2012/01/23 Nursery/Commercial
2012/04/18 Farm
2012/05/31 Parks
2012/05/30 School
2012/05/28 School
2012/05/29 Sports Field
2012/04/11 School
2012/05/30 School
2012/05/24 City Parks
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2012/04/12 Golf Course
2011/06/23 Sports Field
2012/06/04 Sports Field
Commercial
2012/06/07 Nursery
2012/05/31 City Parks
? Commercial ?
2012/11/05
2013/01/31 School
2013/03/07 Sports Field
2013/06/12 School
2013/06/26 Sports Field
1
2
3
1st Response Letter /
Acknowledgement
Plant
2012/04/02 Potsdam
2012/04/13 Potsdam
2012/04/13 Melkbos
2012/04/12
2012/04/13
2012/04/13
2012/03/22
2012/04/19
No Response
Kraaifontein
Potsdam
Kraaifontein
Kraaifontein
Potsdam
Macassar
Macassar
Macassar
Macassar
Macassar
Macassar
Bellville
Cape Flats /
2012/06/04 Athlone
Macassar
Macassar
Melkbos
Potsdam
Macassar
Macassar
Macassar
Kraaifontein
2013/03/07 Macassar
2013/06/12 Kraaifontein
Athlone
Note:
Green: Completed
Yellow: Can’t be provided in near future
104
ANNEXURE 6:
FIVE YEAR RETROFIT AND LEAK REPAIR PROGRAMME
(proposed)
105
Households
cover by
project
Estimated
Cost of
repair per
household
12/13 Budget
1550
R 2 967.74
R 4 600 000
1600
R 2 875.00
R 4 600 000
Bloekombos (phase 2
1500
R 3 066.67
R 4 600 000
Wallacdene (phase 1)
1600
R 3 000.00
R 4 800 000
Wallacdene (phase 2)
1700
R 3 058.82
R 5 200 000
Mfuleni (phase 2)
1800
R 3 111.11
R 5 600 000
Mfuleni (phase 3)
1700
R 3 294.12
R 5 600 000
Langa
2100
R 3 380.95
R 7 100 000
Khayelitsha (phase 1)
2200
R 3 454.55
R 7 600 000
Khayelitsha (phase 2)
1900
R 3 473.68
R 6 600 000
Maccassar (phase 3)
1600
R 3 500.00
R 5 600 000
Du noon (phase 1)
1500
R 3 600.00
R 5 400 000
Description
Samora Machel- Philippi
(phase 2)
Bloekombos (phase 1)
R 9 200 000
13/14 Budget
R 9 400 000
14/15 Budget
R 10 800 000
15/16 Budget
R 12 700 000
16/17 Budget
R 14 200 000
17/18 Budget
R 11 000 000
106