Constant Flow Community Water
Supply in South Africa
Community Water Supply in South
Africa pre-1994



South Africa divided into
homelands, townships and
white areas.
DWAF responsible for water
supply to formal sector.
Water supply in homelands
and townships responsibility
of under-resourced and
unrecognised ‘Banthusthan’
governments.
Community Water Supply in South
Africa post-1994



12 million with inadequate
supply.
DWAF now has
responsibility of supply to all.
New National Policy:




Basic service provision a right.
“Some for All” rather than “All
for Some”.
Water has economic value.
The user pays.
Basic Level of Service





Minimum of 25 litres of
potable per person per day.
Supply point to be within 200
metres of each household.
Reliability of 98%.
Minimum flow of 10 litres
per second.
Infrastructure to be
subsidised with O&M cost
recovery.
Problems with Conventional Basic
Level of Service







Culture of non payment due
to historical subsidisation.
Low reliability.
Inappropriate levels of
service.
Demand levels lower than
design supply.
Poverty.
Lack of community
participation in planning.
Lack of planning for O&M.




Communities gave high
priority to water supply
access.
Lack of capacity to provide
and manage conventional full
pressure household supply
system.
Significant demand for low
capital cost household water
supply with low energy
demand.
Free basic level of supply
made policy in 2000.
Constant Flow Systems





Reticulation networks that
supply water at a constant
rate to distributed household
tank storages.
Constant rate maintained by
constraint mechanisms.
Flow independent of
consumption patterns.
Design for peak flows not
required.
Reticulation pipe sizes and
main storages can be
reduced.
Constant Flow System Options




Trickle feed systems.
LW tank system.
Manual operated system.
Flow control valve systems.
Mechanical flow constraint valves.
 Mechanical constant flow valves.
 Electronic flow control valves.

Trickle Feed Systems
LW Tank Systems
Manually Operated Systems
Yard Tank Options

Plastic tanks

Concrete tanks
Concrete Tanks
Concrete Tanks
Plastic Tanks
International Experience

Australia and New Zealand
utilised for more than 40 years in scattered rural
communities.
 recently subject of WSUD research and utilised in
new developments.


Kiribati, South Pacific

pilots in water scarce environments
Kiribati
South African Pilot Programme


Implementation in 13 communities (peri-urban
to deep rural) to assess feasibility.
Objectives:
Describe and document technology.
 Monitor and evaluate implementation and 1 year of
operation and maintenance.



Economic, technical and social.
Assess feasibility and document lessons learnt.
Pilot Projects
Financial M&E Results
Technical M&E Results

Increased consumption (average of 14 l/cap./day
compared to national average of 7 l/cap./day).

Decrease in system losses (average of 12%
compared to national range of 30-60%).

Low maintenance requirements.
Social M&E Results

Tampering and illegal connections reduced to
almost zero.

High cost recovery (up to 90%).
Feasibility Analysis
Benefits:








Low cost of high level of service.
Increased health and hygiene
benefits.
Simple administration
requirements.
Options for yard tanks.
Low maintenance requirements.
Low losses.
Equitable distribution.
Increased supply security.
Feasibility Analysis
Constraints:






Limited daily flow.
Community acceptance.
Bureaucratic acceptance.
Reduced tolerance to suspended
matter.
Hot water and algae growth.
Perceived risk of tampering and
illegal connections.
Further Research Required




Increase information dissemination.
Concrete tanks.
M&E of consumption and loss patterns.
Options for upgrading level of service at
household level.
The End