Water for Growth & Development Programme, & Acid Mine Drainage in Gauteng: Department of Water Affairs briefings

Meeting report

Water for Growth and Development Programme : Department of Water and Environmental Affairs (DWEA) briefing
Ms Nobu Ngele, Acting Director General, Department of Water Affairs, stated that her Department had an overarching framework in place, to guide the work of the Department, and to ensure that there was adequate water supply to meet the needs of South Africa.

Mr Mbangisani Nepfumbada, Acting Deputy Director General: Policy, Department of Water, provided the Committee with an overview of the Water for Growth and Development Programme (WGD). Water had a critical role to play in all sectors of agriculture, industries, mining power generation and water services. South Africa was the thirtieth driest country in the world, and had limited water resources. This was the reason for the initiation of a water security framework, through the Water for Growth and Development Programme.

The framework offered a long term perspective of how to achieve the 2030 Water Security goals, as far as quantity and quality were concerned. The framework established principles for decision making. One of the principles was that water was at the epicentre of all decision making. It also had highlighted gaps that in turn affected decision making. In consequence, the Department recognised the need to strengthen the regulatory function.

The framework was cross cutting across all sectors. Some of the high level recommendations were that water had to be mainstreamed, as water was at the forefront of planning and not an afterthought. Institutional capacity also had to be strengthened, together with the Department’s regulatory capacity. Furthermore a balance needed to be struck between supply and demand-side measures. Diversifying the water mix was a step in the right direction. Addressing service backlogs and changing water use behaviour were also on the books.

Ms Thandeka Mbassa Deputy Director General: Regions, Department of Water, said that the framework was being finalised and would be submitted to Cabinet for consideration. The Department in the meantime had to continue its work. She continued to set out the Department’s progress on implementation, and elaborated on the high level recommendations mentioned earlier. In attempting to mainstream water, eight reconciliation studies had been completed and two were under way. She noted that, with regard to strengthening the Department’s regulatory function, the establishment of a dedicated branch was also under way. In an attempt to diversify the water mix, a desalination plant was in operation in Sedgefield Municipality in Knysna, and feasibility studies for similar plants were being done in Ethekwini Metro and the City of Cape Town. 1 587 rain water tanks were distributed in the Limpopo, North-West and Eastern Cape Provinces.

She provided the Committee with targeted figures on water savings in the four major water supply systems of Vaal River System, Algoa Bay & Amatole System, Umgeni System, and Western Cape System. The Department was also engaged in water quality management. A Blue Drop Certification Programme was in place for municipalities, in relation to their drinking water quality. Some municipalities were able to achieve Blue Drop certification but most fell short.

Ms Mbassa said that infrastructure development was key to addressing water service backlogs. The Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grants programme was a multi-year programme put in place to address water service backlogs. The budget for the financial year 2010/2011 was R893 million. Eleven projects had been completed and four more projects were to be completed in 2010/2011. The rehabilitation of fifteen dams and one canal conveyance project were in progress. Eight dams were under construction - one in the Western Cape, four in the Eastern Cape, two in Limpopo and one in the Northern Cape. Three projects were under construction and four were in the preparation phase as far as augmentation schemes were concerned. Water Boards had projected to use about R12.6 billion over a period of five years on Capital Expenditure (Capex) projects. R1.862 billion would be used during the current financial year. Capex projects focussed on the upgrade of water treatment works and the refurbishment of waste water treatment works.

Implementation challenges and interventions faced by the Department were also highlighted. Interdepartmental co-ordination and co-operation, recruitment of required skills, ageing and dilapidated infrastructure were identified as some of the challenges.

Ms Mbassa concluded by stating that the framework aimed at improving the alignment of water initiatives with government priorities. No developmental plan would be complete without looking into water availability.

Discussion
The Chairperson reiterated the Department’s sentiments that water was central to economic development, but asked why efforts always seemed to be concentrated in urban areas. He enquired if the Department even considered rural areas, as supply there was also problematic. Since Government considered rural development a top priority, the Department should advise the Committee what it was doing in this area.

The Chairperson said that people were encouraged to conserve water. Mines were major consumers of water, and he wanted to know what measures the Department had put in place to ensure that mines also would conserve water. He also asked if any research had been done by the Department as to what was causing scarcity of water, and whether this was attributable largely to population growth, or other natural causes.

Ms Mbassa stated that the Department had realised that there was a bias towards urban areas for economic development. Basic water was the responsibility of local government.  The Department had to ensure the availability of water, so that local government could then provide it to the public. Water could be a catalyst to alleviate poverty. The Department worked with the Department of Rural Development and Land Affairs on ways to support rural development. This might, for example, include the building of small dams in rural areas.

Mr Nepfumbada said that there was a need to elevate awareness on water conservation. Population growth, climate change and even management aspects affected security of water supply.

Mr D Worth (DA, Free State) stated that there seemed to be a continuing problem of ageing infrastructure of municipalities. Municipalities were allocated funds, but monies were not spent on maintaining infrastructure, more specifically, on the maintenance of water treatment plants. Bursting water pipes was another recurring problem. He felt that municipalities should ring fence funds for the maintenance of infrastructure.

Ms Ngele said that National Treasury did not allocate specific funds for the maintenance of infrastructure at local government level. The Department of Water Affairs was a national competency.  Water was the responsibility of all three tiers of government.
The outcomes approach followed by government had led to co-ordinating forums. There was an integrated approach. It was a learning curve for all. The end was not yet in sight. The Department worked closely with the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs.
There was a programme in place for the refurbishment of infrastructure.

Ms Mbassa agreed that aging infrastructure was a problem. Funding had been made available in the Free State. The problem was that municipalities lacked capacity. She explained that there was no mechanism to ensure that part of municipalities’ funding be used for the maintenance of infrastructure. Funds were, however, ring fenced in Municipal Infrastructure Grants.

Mr Worth asked what the main reason had been behind the decision to raise the height of dam walls. He wondered if the volume in dams was rising. He also asked whether silt was an issue.

Mr Nepfumbada said that dam walls had been raised in order to ensure supply. Long term projects were part of the Department’s planning processes. Cost was however an important issue.

Mr Worth also referred to the Lesotho Highlands Water Scheme and asked if the existing outlet at the Ash River would be the only outlet.  He noted that there had been a long term project to bring water from Botswana to Gauteng, and enquired what had happened to this.

Mr Nepfumbada agreed to forward specifics on the Lesotho Highlands Water Scheme to the Committee.

Ms Ngele added that it was hoped that by 2020 the Lesotho Highlands Water Scheme would allow water to flow to South Africa. A new dam and tunnel would be built. The generation of power was to the benefit of Lesotho. Negotiations were still ongoing over this Scheme.

Ms N Magadla (ANC, KZN) said that if scarcity of skills was an issue, she would like to hear how the Department intended to address the issue.

Mr O De Beer (COPE, Western Cape) was disappointed that only 32 Municipalities had a Green Dot accreditation in terms of the quality of their water. There were more than 250 municipalities whose water quality was not up to scratch. The Department was in the process of assessing municipalities again, and he wanted to know how the Department was intending to assist municipalities to improve their performance.

Ms Mbassa referred to non compliant municipalities, and said that the Department had put in a bid to obtain funding from National Treasury. The Department had a strategy, but no funding. The Department worked hand in hand with Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) to fast track service delivery.

Mr de Beer asked whether government would be able to meet its target of access to basic services by 2014.

Mr de Beer made reference to the poor quality of water at a particular Municipality in the Eastern Cape.

Ms Mbassa said that she would revert to the Committee about the water quality issue at this Municipality in the Eastern Cape.

Mr de Beer conceded that although the core function of the Department was not perhaps infrastructure development, it was a fact that infrastructure utilised 70% of municipalities’ capital. The problem was that municipalities lacked infrastructure. He suggested that existing infrastructure must be maintained before new projects should be embarked on.

Mr de Beer noted that the Department seemed to accept that one of its challenges was that the Intergovernmental Relations Framework was not working optimally. He asked if the intergovernmental team was a technical team. He said that co-ordination was needed on the rolling out of government projects.

Ms Mbassa said that Intergovernmental relations had its challenges but much money had been invested to improve upon it.

Ms Ngele added that a lack of co-ordination was a challenge of government as a whole. Efforts were being made to improve on it.

Mr de Beer asked what the rain water tank allocation by the Department was.

Ms Mbassa said that the rain water tanks allocation applied to those municipalities that had been hit by drought.

Acid Mine Drainage in the Gauteng Province: Department of Water Affairs briefing
Mr Marius Keet, Deputy Director General, Department of Water Affairs, noted that most of the Acid Mine Drainage being undertaken was in the Witwatersrand area. Some of the concerns and risks associated with AMD were high sulphate levels, radio activity and elevated levels of heavy metals. AMD also caused flooding and decanting. AMD had a negative effect on ecosystems and had seismic effects as well.

He continued with specifics on the Witwatersrand AMD challenge. The Witwatersrand was divided into four underground basins. The Eastern Basin was from Nigel to Germiston. The Central Basin ran from Germiston to Roodepoort and included Johannesburg. The Western Basin was from Krugersdorp to Randfontein. This was problematic as it was decanting. The Far Western Basin, which ran from Westonarea to Carletonville, was not really a problem.

The situation in the Eastern Basin was that Aurora Gold at Grootvlei was the last mine pumping in the basin. The water level was currently more or less 700 metres below the surface, but the basin was filling up due to insufficient pumping. Financial problems were limiting pumping and treatment. Grootvlei Mine was currently pumping 70 megalitres per day, when it was supposed to pump 108 megalitres per day in order to maintain the water balance. The Department was monitoring the situation at the mine and had opened up a criminal case against Aurora. The matter was being investigated by South African Police Service (SAPS) and the Department.

Pumping in the Central Basin had stopped in October 2008 owing to safety risks. The location of eventual uncontrolled future AMD was unpredictable. Uncontrolled groundwater contamination and decanting below the Johannesburg CBD would be impossible to contain. The water level in the Basin was 558 metres below the surface on 13 August 2010. The current rate of rise was 0.35 metres per day but it could go up to 0.9 metres in summer. The rate of rise was being monitored by mines and verified by those in the geosciences sector. A new pumping station and upgrades to the high density sludge treatment works was urgently required.

In the Western Basin, AMD started decanting in 2002. This was mostly in respect of ownerless mines. The Department had issued directives to pump and treat. Only Rand Uranium and Mogale Gold were operational. Due to the decanting, the Department intervened and allocated R6.9 million over a three month period. The Department was investigating solutions for interim treatment of uncontrolled decant from the Western Basin.

The situation was not uncontrollable. Mines had established Section 21 companies to address AMD. Mines had initially made a proposal to the Department to address the problems, but the Department had found the initial proposal unacceptable. Mines were requested to submit a new proposal to deal with short, medium and long term sustainable solutions. On 14 July 2010, the mines had submitted a new proposal to deal with AMD, which was currently under review by the Department. Mr Keet stated that there was an integrated approach to deal with the AMD challenge. The mining industry and government was working hand in hand. He conceded that there were serious challenges to dealing with AMD but there was already involvement at the highest level. Collective decisions need to be taken faster.

Discussion
Mr Worth said that he had in the past written to a Minister to complain about the rising water level of Gold Fields Mines in the Free State. He was assured that everything was in order, as mines had to keep reserves. This, unfortunately, was not the case in practice. Mines were often sold and hence ownership changed many times. This raised the question of who was to be held responsible and who was to bear the costs. He asked whether the water released would be potable water. He also enquired what the level of treatment was in respect of pumped-out mine water.

The Chairperson remarked that the presentation was very technical. He asked whether the water pumped out from mines would be stored underground or in the open. He too enquired if the water would be fit for human use, and, if not, how it could be made usable.

Mr Keet said that there were different levels of treatment. The East Basin was partially treated and the situation was acceptable. No water was pumped from the Central Basin. In the West Basin water was decanting. Some of the water was treated. Generally, the situation was unacceptable. By 2014 the salt water had to be treated for industry and potable water use. The water pumped out was underground water, and it could be treated, but this had a cost attached.

The Chairperson said that the Committee noted the budgetary constraints of the Department. The Committee wished to stress that the development of rural areas was paramount. Water was key to everything. If water availability was the Department’s core function, then he recommended that during the rainy season there should be attempts to capture the water that usually ran off into the sea from rivers.

The meeting was adjourned.