Final Report - 2008 - 10 - 27

Amatola Water
Mthatha Regional Water Supply
Feasibility Study - Report
J28068
October 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ARCUS GIBB was appointed in May 2008 to undertake a feasibility study into the
capability of the Mthatha Dam supplying the inhabitants of a number of wards in and
around Mthatha. In July 2008, at OR Tambo District Municipalities request the extent
of the supply area was increased to include the inhabitants of the KSD, Nyandeni and
Mhlontlo local municipalities. The feasibility study was to be a desktop study collating
information from the numerous investigations into the water supply from the Mthatha
Dam and surrounding areas.
This report covers the investigation of the water supply capability of the Mthatha Dam
and its ability to supply the inhabitants of the KSD, Nyandeni and Mhlontlo local
municipalities.
Based on the census 2001 population data, a growth rate of 1.83% of rural
inhabitants and 3% for urban inhabitants the 2038 population of the supply area is
estimated to be almost 1.8 million. Applying a daily water demand of 200 litres for
urban inhabitants and 60 litres for rural inhabitants as well as taking into account
industrial demand and water losses means that ORTDM will need a supply of 167.4
Mℓ per day to supply the inhabitants of the supply area.
The safe yield of the Mthatha Dam was identified as 398.63 Mℓ per day. Of this
Eskom has access to 338.63 Mℓ per day. When one considers the return flows from
Mthatha ORTDM can extract 91.8 Mℓ per day from the Mthatha Dam for domestic
consumption. Should ORTDM choose to extract water below Eskom’s Second Falls
hydro scheme then they will be able to extract 265.3 Mℓ per day without negatively
impacting on the river or estuary environment. Currently ORTDM only have 58.9 Mℓ
per day allocated to them by DWAF from the Mthatha Dam.
A major “consumer” of water from the Mthatha River catchment is the river estuary
itself. From a study undertaken by FST in November 2001 it was identified that
approximately 248 Mℓ per day on average needs to be released from the Mthatha
Dam to sustain the estuary environment. It must be noted that the FST report stated
that further investigation into the environmental reserves is needed, which was not
included in the scope of this study.
There are a number of water treatment works within the study area with a combined
treatment capacity of 73.9 Mℓ per day. The main treatment works is the Thornhill
Treatment Works, which is located at Mthatha and has a capacity of 60 Mℓ per day.
There are a number of bulk storage reservoirs in the supply area with a combined
storage of 83.8 Mℓ.
Three water supply augmentation options were identified to supply water to the
supply area. The first is to extract all 167.4 Mℓ per day from the Mthatha Dam, treat it
at an extended Thornhill Treatment Works and pump it to the upper reaches of the
supply area, from where it will be gravity fed across the supply area. This option will
require a significant reduction in Eskom’s water allocation by DWAF. This could
encounter significant opposition given the current electricity supply situation in South
Africa.
The second option will require the establishment of raw water extraction facilities
below the Second Falls Hydro Scheme to extract 167.4 Mℓ per day. The water will be
Final Report_2008_10_27.doc Rev 0 / October 2008

treated at a new treatment works and pumped to the upper reaches of the supply
area, from where it will be gravity fed across the supply area.
The third option requires the extension of the Thornhill work to treat 90 Mℓ per day
and then obtain the balance of the water below the Second Falls hydro scheme, from
where it will be treated and pumped to the upper reaches of the supply area, from
where it will be gravity fed across the supply area.
Each of the three options will require additional water use licences from DWAF.
A 30 year whole life cost study of the three options indicates that the most cost
effective option will be Option 1 at R4 844 million, including O&M costs. This equates
to an average cost of R3.46 per m3 of treated water consumed. Option 2 will cost R6
861 million with an average cost of R4.90 per m3 of treated water consumed. Option 3
comes in at R5 312 million, including O&M costs with an average cost of 3.91 per m3
of treated water consumed.
On the basis of the whole life cost model and Eskom’s rights to the bulk of the water
in the Mthatha Dam it is concluded that Option 3 is the most viable option to augment
ORTDM’s current water supply.
To develop the feasibility study to implementation readiness level will require a

preliminary design to be undertaken on the selected option. For ARCUS GIBB to do
this will require their appointment value to be extended by R 1 402 223.00, excluding
VAT.

MTHATHA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY
CONTENTS
Chapter Description Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Aims and Objectives of the Feasibility Study 1
1.3 Geographical Scope of the Feasibility Study 2
1.4 Abbreviations 3
2 DEMOGRAPHICS 4
2.1 General Description of Study Area 4
2.2 Socio- Economy 4
2.3 Infrastructure Overview 5
2.4 Climate and Vegetation 5
3 STAGE A - WATER SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY 7
3.1 Raw Water Supplies 7

3.1.1 Storage Dams 7
3.1.2 Mthatha Dam Water Allocation 9
3.1.3 Environmental Reserve 10
3.1.4 Hydro Power Schemes 11
3.1.5 Return Flows 11
3.1.6 Water Availability 12
3.2 Water Treatment Capacity 13
3.3 Potable Water Storage Capacity 14
4 POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND 15
4.1 Baseline Population 15
4.2 Population Growth Rates 16
4.3 Per Capita Consumption 17
4.4 Industrial Demand 17
4.5 Unaccounted for Water 18

4.6 Future Water Demand 18
5 WATER INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS 20
5.1 Scenario 1 – Retain Existing Infrastructure 20
5.2 Scenario 2 – Replace all Existing Water Supply Infrastructure 22
5.3 Gap Analysis – Conclusion 24
6 WATER SUPPLY AUGMENTATION OPTIONS 25
6.1 Option 1 - Thornhill Regional Water Supply Scheme 26
6.2 Option 2 - Second Falls Regional Water Supply Scheme 27
6.3 Option 3 - Two Regional Water Supply Schemes 28
7 PROJECT PHASING 30
8 WHOLE LIFE COST 31
8.1 Construction Costs 31

8.1.1 Option 1 – Thornhill Regional Water Supply Scheme 31
8.1.2 Option 2 – Second Falls Regional Water Supply Scheme 31
8.1.3 Option 3 – Hybrid Regional Water Supply Scheme 32
8.2 Operating Costs 32
8.3 Cost Summary 33
9 PRELIMINARY DESIGNS 34
9.1 Water Supply Standards 36
10 CONCLUSIONS 38
11 RECOMENDATIONS 40
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Locality Map

Appendix 2 – Water Supply Schemes
Appendix 3 – Environmental Assessment
Appendix 4 – DWAF Flow Data
Appendix 5 – Future Water Demand
Appendix 6 – Augmentation Options
Appendix 7 – Whole Life Costing

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The OR Tambo District Municipality (ORTDM) is the Water Services Authority (WSA)
for the seven municipalities within its area of jurisdiction.
In terms of the Water Services Act (Act No 108 of 1997), OR Tambo District
Municipality is responsible for ensuring access to efficient and sustainable water
services in the District Municipal area. The National Water Act (36 of 1998) brings into
effect the procedures and or methods of use, management, conservation and control
of water resources.
As part of the government policy to satisfy the aspects of the legislation, among them
the delivery on objectives such as the supply of potable water to all communities, the
development of regional water supply schemes will be investigated and later
designed and implemented. In order to assist with necessary water services planning,
OR Tambo District Municipality has secured funding through the Department of Water
Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) National Bulk Infrastructure Grant (NBIG) to undertake a
Feasibility Study for the region surrounding the Mthatha Dam.
Amatola Water has been appointed as the Project Implementing Agent (PIA) for this
Feasibility Study. ARCUS GIBB (PTY) LTD was appointed by Amatola Water in May
2008 to undertake the feasibility study.
1.2 Aims and Objectives of the Feasibility Study
The aim of the feasibility study is to undertake a desktop study to complete the
planning groundwork to ensure an adequate water supply for both urban and rural
consumers in the Mhlontlo, KSD and Nyandeni local municipalities. The source of
water to be investigated is the Mthatha Dam. The project includes an investigation of
the existing capacity of the Mthatha Dam and associated bulk water infrastructure as
well as other existing water supply infrastructure in the supply area. Any bulk
infrastructure alternatives required to guarantee the water supplies within the supply
area will be provided.
More specific objectives, as defined in the terms of reference include:
• Stage A – Existing water supply infrastructure capacity

o Assessment of the existing raw water and potable water bulk infrastructure
associated with the Mthatha Dam
o Assessment of the capacity and efficiency of the existing water supply
infrastructure.
o Confirmation of the safe yield of the Mthatha Dam for domestic,
agricultural and industrial use
o Confirmation of the environmental reserve required at the Mthatha Dam,
its immediate surroundings and downstream environment
o Determination of the current usage of the safe yield allocations
Final Report_2008_10_27.doc 1 Rev 0 / October 2008

• Stage B – Water demand
o Determination of the future demand on the Mthatha Dam as the raw water
source for the region
o Identification of the bulk water supply infrastructure capacity gaps
o Identification and quantification of alternative options of raw water and
associated bulk infrastructure augmentation if required
• Stage C – Preliminary Design

o Develop a bulk water infrastructure refurbishment, augmentation and
extension plan for the region based on project life cycle costing principles
o Complete the required preliminary design work for the augmentation and
extension of the regions bulk water infrastructure.
This report covers Stage A and Stage B and will provide recommendations of which
water supply infrastructure augmentation option/s should be developed to a
preliminary design level in Stage C of the project.
1.3 Geographical Scope of the Feasibility Study
The water supply area covered by this study included initially only a number of wards
in and around Mthatha. Following a request from OR Tambo District Municipality the
water supply area was extended to cover the whole of the local municipalities of King
Sabata Dalindyebo (KSD), Mhlontlo and Nyandeni. This study area is illustrated in
Figure 1 below. The study area includes the towns Mthatha, Libode, Ngqeleni,
Mqanduli, Tsolo and Qumbu. Refer to Appendix 1 for a detailed locality map of the
study area.
The Mthatha River is centrally located within the study area. The study area is bound
by the Mzimvubu River in the east and the Mbashe River in the west.
Figure 1: Study Area

1.4 Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this proposal:
AADD Annual Average Daily Demand

DPF Design Peak Factor
DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
GAADD Gross Average Annual Daily Demand
GL Ground Level
HDI Historically Disadvantaged Individual (Female & Non White)
km² Kilometre Squared
kℓ Kilo Litre (1000 litres)
KSD King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality
LM Local Municipality
m³ Cubic Meter (1000 litres)
MAR Mean Annual Runoff
Mℓ Mega Litre (1 000 000 litres)
M.S.L Mean Sea Level
O&M Operation and Maintenance
ORTDM OR Tambo District Municipality
PIA Project Implementing Agent
SDDpl Summer Daily Demand, Bulk Supply Pipelines
SPF Summer Peak Factor
WSA Water Services Authority

2 DEMOGRAPHICS
2.1 General Description of Study Area
The OR Tambo District Municipality comprises of seven local municipalities of which

only three of them (KSD, Mhlontlo and Nyandeni) fall into the study area. Six towns are
included in the study area, these being Qumbu, Libode, Ngqeleni, Mthatha, Tsolo and
Mqanduli. The study area extends over an area of 8357 km2 and includes rural, urban
and peri-urban settlements.
The number of settlements and size of the study area are listed in table 1 below:
No. of Rural
Local Municipality Area Towns
Villages
King Sabata Dalindyebo 3027 km2 Mthatha, Mqanduli 727
2
Mhlontlo 2826 km Qumbu & Tsolo 377
2
Nyandeni 2474 km Ngqeleni & Libode 398
2
Total 8357 km 1,502
Table 1: Study Area Statistics
The urban population is approximately 2% of the total population. The average

household size is 4.6.
2.2 Socio- Economy
The Stats SA Census in 2001 reported a population of 905 931 living in the study area.
Approximately 90% of the households earn an annual income below R19,200 and 34%
of these households have no income.
This is a reflection of the high levels of poverty in the area. Approximately 20% of the
population is considered to be illiterate. The communities largely rely on grants such as
pension and disability grants. Approximately 6% of the population are disabled.
Approximately 9% of the population is employed. The main sources of employment are

shops and restaurants in the local towns and employment offered by the local and
district municipalities. The rural communities depend mostly on small holding type
farming for survival.
The low level of income in the area results in very few people being able to afford to
pay for water. Other challenges faced by the WSA are the operation and maintenance
of the various water supply schemes in the study area and the lack of skills within the
study area.
The area is predominantly rural with peri urban settlements and illegal settlements
around the town. The illegal settlements are a result of the invasion of vacant state land
and the vacant industrial areas of the towns in the study area.

In some of the rural and peri urban areas a few high income level of houses have
emerged. It is assumed that these houses will require a higher level of water supply
than the basic RDP level of service.
The peri urban villages surrounding the towns have a high degree of unemployment.
Mthatha is the centre of the economy in the area.
2.3 Infrastructure Overview
It is estimated that currently on 33% of the population have access to a RDP standard
of potable water. A further 11% have access to a level of supply that is lower than the
RDP standard. The balance (56%) has no formal water supply and must rely on
rainwater tanks and nearby springs and rivers. The maps in Appendix 2 highlight the
different water supply schemes within the study area.
The water supply in all the towns requires urgent attention to bring it to an acceptable
standard. The most common problem experienced is the lack of maintenance of the
existing infrastructure which has resulted in pipe leaks. There are also no meters
installed to monitor the water usage. The District Municipality is therefore only
collecting a minimal amount of revenue from its water consumers.
The reports from Stats SA show that in 2001, 51% of the population had access to
sanitation ranging from bucket latrines to flush systems. Currently the ORTDM reported
an increase in the eradication of the bucket system and a significant increase in people
with access to sanitation. In towns sanitation is mainly provided through septic tanks
and in some instances a waterborne sewage system exists. Where the latter system
does exist it is found to be in a very poor condition due to improper or no maintenance.
The main access roads in the area are the N2 from East London to Kokstad, the R61
from Mthatha to Port St Johns, the R61 from Mthatha to Queenstown and the R396
from Tsolo to Maclear. These roads are currently under routine maintenance. Most
gravel access roads to the rural villages are in a bad state requiring maintenance. In
some instances there are no formal access roads but tracks.
2.4 Climate and Vegetation
The study area has a relatively high rainfall and a temperate climate. Most of the
rainfall occurs during the summer season. The average annual rainfall for the regions
ranges between 685mm and 1000mm per annum. The coast experiences the highest
rainfall within the area. Rainfall reduces as one goes inland with Mthatha and
surrounds experiencing 685mm per annum. The rainfall at the top of the catchments
increases due to the presence of the mountains in the area. Most of the annual rainfall
occurs as moderate to heavy falls during the summer months. Extremely heavy falls
and freak storms have been documented throughout the study area.
High temperatures of over 40 degrees Celsius can be experienced during the summer
months. June to August are the coldest months with mean temperatures varying
between 12.5º C and 14.4º C. Temperatures throughout the study area vary in relation
to the elevation and proximity to the coast.

The region is biologically diverse supporting most of the biomes of the plants species.
The dominating biomes in the area are savannah, thicket and forest. The vegetation
types vary according to locality and altitude.

3 STAGE A - WATER SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY
This section of the report covers the following:
♦ The capacity of the Mthatha Dam and the water use there from;
♦ The capacity of the different water supply schemes in the supply area; and
♦ The capacity of the bulk infrastructure such as water treatment, storage &
pumping in the study area.
3.1 Raw Water Supplies
Raw water for the study area is obtained from a number of sources. These being dams,
rivers, springs, boreholes and rainwater tanks. This study focuses on the Mthatha Dam
which is the major dam in the study area.
3.1.1 Storage Dams
The study area falls within the T20, T80 and T70 catchments. Refer to the maps
included in Appendix 3. The Mthatha River is the main river that drains the T20
catchment. The T70 and T80 catchments lie either side of the Mthatha River. The T70
catchment comprises the Mgazi River while the T80 catchments comprises the Xora
River. Both rivers drain into the Indian Ocean and have significantly smaller
catchments than the Mthatha River.
The Mthatha River catchment has an average natural runoff of approximately 382
million m³ per annum (MAR) and covers an area of 2600 km². The catchment is
dominated by scattered rural villages with little urban development.
The Mthatha dam (Gauge number T2R001) is the only large dam in the area. It is
located in the quaternary catchment T20 B of the Mthatha River. Its catchment area of
886 km². The construction of the dam was completed in 1977. It has the following
features at full supply:
♦ Full Supply Level 692.94 m

♦ Gross Storage Capacity 253.70 million m³
♦ Surface Area 25.4 km²
♦ Mean Annual Runoff 212 million m³ / annum
♦ 1 in 50 year yield 145 million m³ / annum
The 1 in 50 year yield is considered the safe yield of the dam. The Mthatha Dam will
therefore be able to supply 145 million m³ per annum for 49 out of every 50 years. This
has been derived by means of statistical analysis of the dam given its gross storage
capacity and it’s MAR over a number of years.
The Mthatha Dam was built mainly to supply water to Mthatha and to provide storage
for releases to hydropower stations. It is a rock-fill type dam wall and has a concrete
ogee crescent shaped spillway.
Three smaller dams exist in the T20 catchment. These are the Mabeleni Dam, the First
Falls Balancing Dam and the Second Falls Balancing Dam.

The Mabeleni dam is located on the Mhlahlane River in the (T20A Quaternary
catchment) and covers an area of 10 km². The Mhlahlane River is the main water
source for the Mhlahlane Regional Water Scheme. This source also augments the
urban supply for Mthatha. The Mhlahlane River is one of the tributaries to the Mthatha
River upstream of the Mthatha Dam.
The Mabeleni dam is an earth fill type dam and has the following features at full supply:

♦ Mean Annual Runoff 2.0 million m³ / annum
♦ 1 in 50 year yield 1.7 million m³ / annum
The First Falls Balancing Dam is a mass concrete dam and is situated just downstream
of Mthatha. It is used as a balancing dam for hydropower generation by ESKOM. The
dam was built in 1980 and has the following features:

♦ 1 in 50 year yield Not Available
The Second Falls Balancing Dam is a mass concrete dam and is situated
approximately 28 km downstream of the First Falls Balancing Dam. It is used as a
balancing dam for hydropower generation by ESKOM. The dam was built in 1980 and
has the following features:

♦ 1 in 50 year yield Not Available
A number of other dams exist outside the T20 catchment but are still within the study
area. These being the Corhana, Mhlanga, Nzwakazi, Bulolo and Upper Bololo dams.
The Corhana Dam is located on the Corhana River, approximately 12 km north west of
Mthatha. It is an earth fill type dam used for domestic supply to the peri urban
settlements west of the N2 to Kokstad (Corhana Scheme). The dam has the following
features at full supply:

♦ Catchment Area 5.38 km²
♦ Mean Annual Runoff 0.54 million m³ / annum
♦ Spillway Unknown
The Mhlanga Dam is located on the Mhlanga River south of the R61 going towards
Port St Johns. It is an earth fill type dam used for domestic supply to the Libode
Regional Water Supply Scheme. The dam has the following features at full supply:

♦ Full Supply Level 983,0 m
♦ Catchment Area 13.9 km²
♦ Spillway Side Chute
The Nzwakazi Dam is used for domestic supply to the Ngqeleni town. The dam is an
earth embankment dam. Construction of the dam was completed in 1987. It has a wall
height of 10 meters and the maximum water depth is 8.5 meters. Its storage capacity is
0.07 million m³ and its 1 in 50 year yield is 0.102 million m³ / annum. Further detailed
information about the dam is not available at this point.
The Bololo and Upper Bololo dams have a combined storage capacity of 0.6 million m3
/ annum with their combined 1 in 50 year yield being 0.38 million m3 / annum.
3.1.2 Mthatha Dam Water Allocation
The literature available indicates that the 1:50 year yield of the Mthatha Dam is 145.5
million m3 / annum. According to the FST study of this, 21.5 million m3 / annum is
reserved for domestic consumption. According to DWAF records ORTDM only have
permits for 13.5 million m3 / annum, which is less than their current consumption of 19.3
million m3 / annum. The bulk of the balance (124.0 million m3 / annum) is reserved for
Eskom power generation at the First and Second Falls Hydro schemes on the Mthatha
River. Other users of the water are irrigation (202 971 m3 / annum), livestock (876 m3 /
annum) and recreation facilities at the Mthatha Dam (12 000 m3 / annum).
It is further noted that the Mabeleni Dam is situated on the Mthatha River just upstream
of the Mthatha Dam. It has a safe yield of 1.7 million m3 / annum with 0.79 million
currently being treated for domestic supply.
Table 2 below summarizes the water allocation per user for the Mthatha and Mabeleni
dams.
Mthatha Dam
m3/annum m3/day %
1:50 year yield 145 500 000 398 630 100%
Domestic Supply 21 500 000 58 900 14.8%
Hydro Power 123 784 153 339 553 85.1%
Other Users 215 847 591 0.1%
Mabeleni Dam
1:50 year yield 1 700 000 4 657 100%
Domestic Supply 790 000 2 164 46%
Other 910 000 2 493 54%
Combined
1:50 year yield 147 200 000 403 287 100%
Domestic Supply 22 290 000 61 064 15.1%
Hydro Power 123 784 153 339 553 84.1%
Other 1 125 847 3 084 0. 8%

Table 2: Water Allocation
As the Mthatha and Mabeleni Dams are on the same river the water allocated for
domestic supply from both dams should be combined as the water from the Mabeleni
Dam can easily be discharged downstream for extraction from the Mthatha Dam.
The Eskom releases from the Mthatha Dam are more than the environmental releases
required.
3.1.3 Environmental Reserve
When considering the environmental reserve one has to consider the Mthatha Dam
environment and the Mthatha River environment downstream of the Mthatha Dam.
The only study undertaken on the environmental elements of the Mthatha River is the
FST study titled Mthatha River Basin Study dated November 2001. The FST study
presents some statistics on the environmental flows needed from the Mthatha Dam.
However they report that the statistics have a low degree of accuracy. They further
recommend that a detailed study be undertaken if accurate statistics on the
environmental flow reserves are required. This feasibility report does not include a
detailed environmental study as recommended by FST.
A further possible source of information on the environmental reserves is DWAF’s

Internal Strategic Perspective (ISP) covering the Mthatha River. A review of the ISP
reports provides no additional environmental reserve information.
The Mthatha River forms part of the T20 Drainage Catchment. Please refer to a
detailed environmental report contained in Appendix 3, which includes maps showing
the drainage catchments. The table below is an extract from the FST report referred to
above. It summarizes the riverine water requirement and estuarine water requirements
per Quaternary Catchment. Please note that the Mthatha Dam is located at the lower
end of the T20B Quaternary Catchment.
Quaternary MAR (Million m3 / Riverine Water Estuarine Water

Catchment annum) Requirement Requirement
(kℓ/d) (kℓ/d)
T20A 126.4 47 790 147 709
T20B 85.9 32 477 100 382
T20C 38.9 14 707 45 458
T20D 29 10 964 33 889
T20E 34.7 13 119 40 550
T20F 33.1 12 515 38 860
T20G 34.1 12 893 39 849
Subtotal T20 382.1 144 465 446 400
Table 3: Environmental Flow Requirements
The estuarine flow requirement is higher than the riverine flow requirement. From table
3 it is evident that to maintain the estuarine environment in the Mthatha River an
average of 248 091 kℓ/day needs to be released from the Mthatha Dam.
A further point to note is that the development of the hydro schemes at the two falls has
resulted in higher flows than normal during the dry winter months. It is reported that this

has negatively impacted the environment in the river and estuary. For the river
environment to function naturally the river requires there to be a dry and a wet season.
From the dam’s perspective there is no requirement to retain water in the dam for
environmental purposes as the dam is considered an unnatural environment occupied
by alien fish species.
3.1.4 Hydro Power Schemes
There are two hydro power schemes located on the Mthatha River. The first is located
at the First Falls, approximately 5km from Mthatha and the second is located at the
Second Falls approximately 28 km downstream of the First Falls.
According to a source at Eskom DWAF release 4 m3 of water per second out of the
Mthatha Dam 24 hours per day all year round. This equates to 345 600 m3 per day.
Water released from the Mthatha Dam is captured in the First Falls Balancing Dam and
discharged downstream via the hydro plant at the First Falls. This water then takes 8
hours to flow downstream and is captured in the Second Falls Balancing Dam for
release downstream via the Second Falls Hydro plant. The bulk of the water released
from the Second Falls Hydro plant flows into the Indian Ocean at the Mthatha River
Mouth. Only a small quantity is removed for agriculture and domestic consumption
through the Coffee Bay Water Supply Scheme.
The normal operating hours for both hydro schemes during the dry winter months is
from 07:00 to 10:00 and then from 18:00 to 20:00, Monday to Saturday. The hydro
schemes rarely operate on a Sunday as Eskom does not experience any demand
peaks on a Sunday. Eskom are 100% dependant on water releases from the Mthatha
Dam for electricity generation at the two falls during the winter months. During the
wetter summer months the additional flow caused by the rainwater runoff allows
ESKOM to increase their operating hours. The average operating hours for both
schemes for the first 7 months of 2008 was approximately 10 hours per day.
The current hydro water supply conditions are those negotiated in 1983 by TESCOR
and the Department of Agriculture and Forestry, both former Transkei institutions. The
conditions state that water released from the dam will cease when the dam water level
reaches 680.2m. When the dam reaches this level it only has approximately 20% of its
storage capacity left. DWAF are responsible for setting the price for the sale of water to
Eskom. DWAF are currently reviewing the water tariff charged to Eskom. Once the new
tariffs are set Eskom should be approached to identify what their long term plan will be
for the two hydro schemes.
3.1.5 Return Flows
Return flows from the urban sewage treatment works need to be considered when
determining the volume of water available in the river. The FST report indicated that
Mthatha and Mqanduli are the only towns that have return flows into the Mthatha River.
The return flows reported by FST are:
♦ Mthatha 16.6 Mℓ per day

♦ Mqanduli 0.16 Mℓ per day

Mthatha and Mqanduli are located below the Mthatha Dam. Mthatha is located above
the First and Second Falls. The Mqanduli return flow is insignificant and therefore
should not be considered further in this study.
The return flow for Mthatha is substantially lower than the volume of water treated at
Thornhill. This is possibly caused by a substantial volume of sewage bypassing the
sewage treatment works because of pipe leaks and blockages. It must be noted that
ORTDM are currently implementing a program to upgrade their bulk outfall sewers in
Mthatha. This program will significantly reduce the leaks / blockages and will result in a
larger return flow entering the river environment after being treated. As a result of this it
has been assumed that the return flows will increase to approximately 60% of the
volume of water treated at the Thornhill works. Based on current treated water
consumption the return flows will be approximately 31.8 Mℓ per day for Mthatha.
3.1.6 Water Availability
The table 4 below summarizes the water availability at the Mthatha Dam and below the
Second Falls.
From the Below the Calculations

Mthatha Second
Dam Falls
(Mℓ/day) (Mℓ/day)
Safe Yield of Mthatha Dam 398.63 398.63 1
Domestic Consumption 60 60 2
Eskom Releases 338.63 0 3
Environmental Releases 0 (Note 1) 248.1 4
Return Flows (Note 2) 0 31.8 5
Spare Capacity 0 122.3 6=1-2-3-4+5
Additional Discharges (Note 3) 0 83 7
Total Potential Domestic Consumption 60 265.3 7=2+6+7
Table 4: Water Availability
Note 1 – The Eskom releases are more than the environmental releases required
therefore no allowance is made for environmental releases.
Note 2 – As Mthatha’s water demand increases the return flows from Mthatha will
increase. This will allow additional water to be extracted from the Mthatha Dam for
domestic consumption without negatively impacting on Eskom’s allocation.
Note 3 – As the Second Fall hydro scheme is located further downstream there are
additional runoffs available for domestic use. As these runoffs will not be captured in
the Mthatha Dam additional storage will be required to make effective use of this water.
DWAF should be approached to investigate whether the volume of the return flows
from Mthatha can be deducted from Eskom’s allocation and reallocated to ORTDM for
domestic consumption. This will increase the water availability for ORTDM to 91.8 Mℓ
per day.

3.2 Water Treatment Capacity
A number of water treatment works exist in the study area. The names of each, their
location and daily capacity are reported in Table 5.
Treatment Works Location Water Source Daily Capacity

Name (m3 per day)
Thornhill Mthatha Mthatha Dam 60 000
Rosedale Mthatha Mthatha Dam 3 000
Mhlahlane Mhlahlane Mabeleni Dam 2 164
Mqanduli Mqanduli Manqondo Weir 206
Libode Libode Mhlanga Dam 2 173
Ngqeleni Ngqeleni Nzwakazi Dam 540
Corana Mthatha Corana 510
Mhlange Libode Mhlanga Dam 1 540
Tsolo Tsolo Lutikitiki River 700
Qumbu Qumbu Engana River -
Sidwadweni WSS Mthatha Nqadu Dam 1 750
Coffee Bay WSS Coffee Bay Mthatha River 1 296
TOTAL 73 879
Table 5: Existing Water Treatment Works
The Thornhill Water Treatment Works has recently been upgraded to a capacity of 60
Mℓ per day and is currently operating at 53 Mℓ per day. The works is located at an
elevation that allows the water to flow under gravity from the dam to the treatment
works. Under normal conditions the supply pipeline has a capacity of 80 Mℓ per day.
Inline booster pumps are available to supplement the gravity supply during periods of
low levels in the dam. A further pump station capable of pumping 23 Mℓ per day to the
Thornhill works is located on the Mthatha River, just below the dam. The condition of
the pipeline and pumps needs to be assessed and upgraded if needed. From of review
of DWAF’s flow data recorded at gauge T2H009 for the last 4 years, DWAF has
released on average 51.6 Mℓ per day to the Thornhill Works. See Appendix 4.
The water treated at the Rosedale Water Treatment Works is pumped from the
Mthatha Dam. The pumps are attached to a floating barge via a flexible hose. The
barge will become grounded should the water level in the dam drop to below 680m
above m.s.l. This will prevent the Rosedale Works from getting water unless the
flexible hose is lengthened. The dam will only hold approximately 20% of its storage
capacity should the water level drop to 680m above m.s.l.
Water treated at the Mhlahlane Treatment Works flows under gravity from the Mabeleni
Dam to the treatment Works.

3.3 Potable Water Storage Capacity
Water storage reservoirs are located throughout the study area. The combined storage
volume of all the reservoirs identified is approximately 95 Mℓ. The larger reservoirs are
listed in Table 6 below.
Location Capacity (Mℓ)

Signal Hill 20.45
Fort Gale 16
Owen Dam 10
Ikwezi 8
Ncambedlana 8
Zamukulungisa 4.5
Zimbane 4.5
Maydene 3
Ncambedlana High Level 3
Rosedale 3
Mabeleni Dam 1.45
Upper Chulunca 1.04
Coffee Bay 0.92
TOTAL 83.86
Table 6: Potable Water Storage

4 POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND
The study has determined the current and future water demand for the population living
in the area covered by KSD, Nyandeni and Mhlontlo Local Municipality. The water
demand is made up of a number of factors, these being:
♦ The baseline population (rural and urban);

♦ The predicted population growth rate;
♦ The planned water consumption for rural and urban people; and
♦ Unaccounted for water
4.1 Baseline Population
Numerous data sources are available to determine the baseline population. These
being:
♦ Census 2001;
♦ Community survey (2007), also includes a 2001 summary; and
♦ DWAF Reference Framework data (2007).
A comparison has been made of the data available from each of these sources. Table
7 and 8 below summarizes the population data obtained from these three sources.
DWAF
Community Framework
2001 Census 2001
survey (2007) Reference
data (2007)
KSD LM Urban 12 453 No Data No Data
Rural 399 418 No Data No Data
Total 411 871 416 348 No Data
Nyandeni LM Urban 4 216 No Data No Data
Total 296 337 274 416 No Data
Mhlontlo LM Urban 3 162 No Data No Data
Total 197 723 202 851 No Data
TOTAL 905 931 893 615 No Data
Table 7: Population Data (2001)

2007
KSD LM Urban No Data No Data No Data
Rural No Data No Data No Data
Total No Data 444 830 419 613
Nyandeni LM Urban No Data No Data No Data
Total No Data 314 273 322 596
Mhlontlo LM Urban No Data No Data No Data
Total No Data 237 138 250 161
TOTAL No Data 996 241 992 370
Table 8: Population Data (2007)
The Census 2001 data is the only data set that distinguishes between rural and urban.
This data is also broken up by individual village within the supply area. Of concern with
this data is the relatively low “Urban” population in the three LMs. An explanation given
for this is that the greater portion of the population perceived as “Urban” actually live in
a “Peri Urban” environment. The “Peri Urban” areas are normally serviced to a similar
level of service to that of the “Rural” area.
A comparison of the population data obtained from the Census 2001 and the
Community Survey (2007) (2001 data) indicates a difference of 1.3% with the Census
2001 data being the higher. Similarly a comparison between the Community Survey
(2007) data for 2007 and the DWAF Reference Framework data (also 2007) indicated
a difference of 0.4% with the Community Survey (2007) data being the higher.
Although there are differences these are considered insignificant.
The baseline for this study is therefore based on the Census 2001 data as it is slightly
higher (more conservative) and offers a higher level of detail than the other data
sources identified.
4.2 Population Growth Rates
Critical to the accuracy of future water demand estimates is the population growth rate
used. The Community Survey (2007) data is the only data set that provides data for
both 2001 and 2007 and therefore it is the only data set that can be used to determine
current population growth rates.
Table 9 below provides the average population growth rates from 2001 to 2007 (6
years) for the three local municipalities covered by the study and an average for the
whole study area.

2001 2007 Average Growth
Rate
KSD LM 416 348 444 830 1.11%
Nyandeni LM 274 416 314 273 2.64%
Mhlontlo LM 202 851 237 138 2.29%
TOTAL 893 615 996 241 1.83%
Table 9: Population Growth Rate
The average growth rate for the three LMs was calculated at 1.83%. For the purpose of
this study 1.83% is used for determining the future rural population totals. As there is a
tendency for rural people in the area to migrate towards urban areas this study has
used a higher growth rate for determining the future urban population, this being 3.0%.
4.3 Per Capita Consumption
For the purpose of this study the urban water consumption was set at 200 litres per day
per person. The average water consumption per person for the “Rural” population was
set at 60 litres per person per day in 2008.
It must be noted that ARCUS GIBB and WSSA were required to report water
consumption data to DWAF during the operation phase of the BOTT Water Supply
Scheme projects. This was prior to the schemes being transferred over to the client.
Data captured during these projects indicated that the actual per person water
consumption for people supplied by RDP type rural water schemes vary rarely 10 litres
per person per day. It is thought that this low consumption is due to the fact that the
water must be carried in buckets for distances up to 200m, often in undulating terrain.
Further, the community believe that it is easier to wash clothes at the traditional spring /
river thus reducing the water demand from the RDP supply.
4.4 Industrial Demand
No studies have been undertaken covering the industrial water demand within the
study area. The industrial demand could have been calculated based on the area of
industrial land in each of the urban centres in the study area. However, we were unable
to get land usage data for the urban areas. To overcome this we have assumed that
industrial demand is equal to twice the urban demand.
Please note that industrial demand includes for both industrial and business demand.

4.5 Unaccounted for Water
An allowance needs to be made for unaccounted for water. This is water that is lost
either through leaks or illegal connections. The FST Mthatha River Basin study
indicated that as much as 50% of Mthatha’s water is unaccounted for.
ORTDM are currently undertaking a water loss management program which is aimed
at reducing the volume of unaccounted for water. The aim of that program is to reduce
the unaccounted for water from 50% to a more acceptable level. For the purpose of this
study we have reduced the percentage of unaccounted for water by 5% each year until
it reaches an acceptable level of 20%. It must be noted that according to the FST study
the UK and France both have water losses of approximately 21%, while their water
consumption is approximately 150 litres per person per day.
The table 10 below summarizes the water demand per person and unaccounted for
water used for the purpose of determining the future water demand of the study area.
Year Urban Consumption Rural Consumption Unaccounted

(Litres per person per (Litres per person per For Water
day) day)
2008 200 60 50%
2009 200 60 45%
2010 200 60 40%
2011 200 60 35%
2012 200 60 30%
2013 200 60 25%
2014 200 60 20%
2015 200 60 20%
2016 200 60 20%
2017 200 60 20%
2018 200 60 20%
2019 200 60 20%
2020 and 60 20%
200
onwards
Table 10: Per Capita Water Demand
4.6 Future Water Demand
The future water demand for the three LMs was calculated for the next 30 years using
the Census 2001 population data as the baseline population. The 2001 population data
was extrapolated at 1.83% per year for rural inhabitants and 3.0% per year for urban
inhabitants. The per capita consumption values reported in Section 4.3 and the
unaccounted for water factor reported in Section 4.5 were applied to determine the
future water demand. An allowance for industrial demand was also made (Section 4.4)
Table 11 below provides a summary of the water demand growth from 2001 until 2038.
The complete water demand table is included in Appendix 5.

2001 2007 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2038
Urban Population
19.8 23.7 24.4 28.2 32.8 38.0 44.0 59.2
(Thousand)
Urban Demand
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
(ℓ/ person/day)
Total Urban Demand
3.97 4.74 4.88 5.66 6.56 7.60 8.81 11.84
(Mℓ/day)
Rural Population
886 988 1 006 1 102 1 206 1 321 1 446 1 733
(thousand)
Rural Demand
60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
(ℓ/ person/day)
Total Rural Demand
53.2 59.3 60.4 66.1 72.4 79.2 86.8 104.0
(Mℓ/day)
Industrial Demand 7.9 9.5 9.8 11.3 13.1 15.2 17.6 23.7
Total Demand 65.1 73.5 75.0 83.1 92.0 102.0 113.2 139.5
Unaccounted for
50% 50% 50% 25% 15% 15% 15% 15%
water (%)
Unaccounted for
32.5 36.7 37.5 20.8 18.4 20.4 22.6 27.9
water (Mℓ/day)
Total Demand
97.6 110.2 112.5 103.8 110.4 122.4 135.8 167.4
(Mℓ/day)
% of Safe Yield of
24% 28% 28% 26% 28% 31% 34% 42%
Mthatha Dam
Table 11: Future Water Demand
From the above table it is evident that the current water demand (2008) for the three
LMs is 112.5Mℓ per day. This declines initially due to ORTDM’s water conservation and
demand management initiatives but then grows to 167.4Mℓ per day in 2038. This
equates to 42% of the safe yield of the Mthatha Dam.

5 WATER INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS
A gap analysis has been undertaken to determine what additional water supply
infrastructure is needed to supply the rural and urban population of the KSD, Nyandeni
and Mhlontlo Local Municipalities with water up to and including the year 2038. This
supply is based on 200 litres per person per day for urban inhabitants and 60 litres per
day for rural inhabitants.
Two scenarios are reported in this section. The first scenario is based on the
assumption that all the existing water supply schemes will remain in operation and any
new infrastructure provided will serve only those who do not have the required level of
water service. The second scenario is based on the assumption that all the smaller
supply schemes will be made redundant over a number of years (i.e. when they are in
need of refurbishment / upgrading) and the whole population will be supplied with water
from the Mthatha Dam / River.
5.1 Scenario 1 – Retain Existing Infrastructure
Currently ORTDM has access to 70.9 Mℓ of water per day from the Mthatha Dam and
the other major water supply schemes within the study area. Figure 2 below plots the
current water available to ORTDM across the entire study area against the water
demand for the whole study area. From the figure it is evident that ORTDM will need to
apply for additional water from DWAF in 2008 if they are to supply water to the whole
study area. To meet the 2038 demand of the study area ORTDM will need 167.4 Mℓ
per day of water from the various sources. This equates to an additional 96.5 Mℓ per
day over and above what they currently have allocated to them by DWAF.
Water Supply
180
160
Mega Litres Per Day
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038
Available Water Supply Required Water Supply
Figure 2: Water Availability vs Demand

Currently ORTDM has access to 73.9 Mℓ of treatment works capacity in the whole
study area. Figure 3 below plots the current water treatment capacity available to
ORTDM at the various treatment works across the study area against the water
demand for the entire study area. From the figure it is evident that ORTDM will need to
provide additional treatment capacity in 2008 if they want to supply water to the whole
study area, including those currently unserved. To meet the 2038 demand of the study
area ORTDM will need to treat 167.4 Mℓ per day. This equates to an additional 93.5 Mℓ
per day more than what they are currently treating at the Thornhill works.
Water Treatment
180
160
Mega Litres Per Day
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038
Available Water Treatment Required Water Treatment
Figure 3: Treatment Works Availability vs Demand
From a review of the main water supply schemes in the area it is evident that these
have approximately 95 Mℓ of storage. Figure 4 below plots the current water storage
capacity available to ORTDM across the entire study area against the required storage
for the whole study area. Please note that 2 days worth of storage is desired for bulk
storage when the water is pumped, otherwise 1.5 days worth of storage is needed. For
this exercise it is assumed that 60% of the water is pumped. From the figure it is
evident that ORTDM will need to provide additional storage capacity in 2008 if they
wish to supply the whole study area. To meet the 2038 demand of the study area
ORTDM will need to provide 301 Mℓ of storage to provide the desired two days storage.
This equates to an additional 206 Mℓ of storage.

Water Storage
350
300
Mega Litres per Day
250
200
150
100
50
0
2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038
Available Water Storage Required Water Storage
Figure 4: Potable Water Storage Availability vs Demand
5.2 Scenario 2 – Replace all Existing Water Supply Infrastructure
Figure 5 below plots the current water available to ORTDM from the Mthatha Dam, in
terms of permits in place, against the water demand for the entire study area. From the
figure it is evident that ORTDM will need to apply for additional water from DWAF in
2008 if they are to supply the whole study area from the Mthatha Dam. To meet the
2038 demand of the study area ORTDM will need to obtain 167.4 Mℓ per day from the
Mthatha Dam. This equates to an additional 130 Mℓ per day over and above what they
currently have allocated to them by DWAF.
Water Supply
180
160
Mega Litres per Day
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038
Figure 5: Water Availability vs Demand

Figure 6 below plots the current water treatment capacity available to ORTDM at the
Thornhill Treatment Works against the water demand for the entire study area. From
the figure it is evident that ORTDM will need to immediately provide additional
treatment capacity over and above what is currently available at the Thornhill work if
they want to supply the whole study area from the Mthatha Dam. To meet the 2038
demand of the study area ORTDM will need to treat 167.4 Mℓ per day. This equates to
an additional 107.4 Mℓ per day more that what they are currently treating at the
Thornhill works.
Water Treatment
180
160
Mega Litres per Day
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038
Available Water Treatment Required Water Treatment
Figure 6: Treatment Works Availability vs Demand
From a review of the main water supply schemes in the area it is evident that these
have approximately 95 Mℓ of storage. Figure 7 below plots the current water storage
capacity available to ORTDM across the entire study area against the required storage
for the whole study area. Please note that 2 days worth of storage is desired for bulk
storage when the water is pumped, otherwise 1.5 days worth of storage is needed. For
this exercise it is assumed that 60% of the water is pumped. From the figure it is
evident that ORTDM will need to provide additional storage capacity in 2008 if they
wish to supply the whole study area. To meet the 2038 demand of the study area
ORTDM will need to provide 301 Mℓ of storage to provide the desired two days storage.
This equates to an additional 206 Mℓ of storage.

Water Supply
180
160
Mega Litres per Day
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038
Figure 7: Potable Water Storage Availability vs Demand
5.3 Gap Analysis – Conclusion
From the above it is clear that there are major infrastructure gaps regardless of which
scenario is implemented.
The biggest gaps are in the treatment of the raw water and bulk storage of the treated
water. Additional capacity is immediately required for both these elements.
ORTDM need additional permits from DWAF to allow them to even supply the current
population of the supply area.

6 WATER SUPPLY AUGMENTATION OPTIONS
From section 3.1.6 it is evident that the volume of water that can be extracted from the
Mthatha River is dependant on the extraction location.
Should the water be extracted from the Mthatha Dam then Eskom’s allocation will need
to be reduced up to a minimum of the estuarine flow requirements (248 Mℓ per day).
This will allow ORTDM to extract 150 Mℓ per day from the Mthatha Dam. Should the
extraction point be moved to below the second falls then the volume extracted can be
increased to 265.3 Mℓ per day.
The Mthatha river itself has a substantially higher yield than the 265 Mℓ per day that is
available. This is however reduced as a result of the environmental releases needed to
sustain the estuarine environment. Given this fact, the Mthatha Dam / River has
sufficient capacity to supply water to the entire study area until the year 2033 should
the water be extracted from the Mthatha Dam or beyond 2038 should the water be
extracted from below the Second Falls or a combination of the Mthatha Dam and the
Second Falls. It must be noted that as the demand increases the return flows will
increase, which in turn will increase the water availability at each of the two sources.
This section of the report covers the water supply options that can be provided with
water from the Mthatha Dam / River.
Three options are available for supplying additional water from the Mthatha Dam /
River. These are:
1. Set up a regional water supply scheme between the Mthatha Dam and Mthatha
(Thornhill Regional Water Supply Scheme);
2. Set up a regional water supply scheme below the Second Falls hydro scheme
(Second Falls Regional Water Supply Scheme); and
3. Set up two regional water supply schemes, the first located below the Mthatha
Dam and the second Below the Second Falls hydro scheme (Hybrid Regional
Water Supply Scheme).
Schematic drawings of each of these alternatives will be prepared and included in the
final version of the report.
These options are all applicable should it be decided to maintain all or some of the
current water supply schemes in the study area (refer to scenario 1 in Section 5.1) or if
it is decided to replace all the current schemes with a regional water supply scheme
(refer to scenario 2 in Section 5.2).

6.1 Option 1 - Thornhill Regional Water Supply Scheme
This option will require an additional extract permit from DWAF to enable ORTDM to
extract the additional water directly from the Mthatha Dam. This option will only be
capable of supplying the supply area until 2033, thereafter an additional source will be
needed. A possible source could be extraction from below the Second Falls. It must
however be noted that the Mthatha dam itself could have sufficient capacity to supply
the whole study area until 2038 as increasing water demand will result in an increase in
return flows. This will in turn result in an increase in the water availability from the
Mthatha dam as the return flows can be used to supplement to estuarine requirements.
This option could be challenged by Eskom as it will mean a reduction in the volume of
water discharged down the river for their use at the hydro schemes.
Should the extract permit be granted by DWAF then this scheme will require the
following:
♦ Upgrade the supply pipeline from the dam to the proposed treatment works;
♦ Upgrade the Thornhill works, in stages, to increase its capacity to 150 Mℓ per
day. This will depend on land availability adjacent to the current works.
Should this not be available then identify a new site below the dam and
provide a new treatment works to either supplement the Thornhill Works or to
treat the entire 150 Mℓ per day;
♦ Provide additional storage reservoirs at strategic places across the study
area. The location of these reservoirs should be chosen to minimise any
pumping requirements;
♦ Provide the required pump stations to pump the water to the high lying
reservoirs;
♦ Provide bulk pipelines from the treatment works / pump stations to the
reservoirs;
♦ Provide bulk pipelines to link the bulk reservoirs with the existing water
supply scheme reticulation.
♦ Provide reticulation pipelines to those areas that currently don’t have any
formal water supply. This will also entail upgrading any reticulation networks
that are in a poor condition or do not comply with standards.
The pros of this alternative are:
♦ The capital costs will be the lower than the other two options;
♦ The O&M costs will be lower than the other two options as a result of the
reduced pumping requirements. The treatment works and pump station will
be located at the highest available point within the supply area;
♦ The scheme will be conveniently located to the ORTDM’s office in Mthatha.
This will assist with the operation and management of the scheme;
♦ This option will allow for using the existing infrastructure at Thornhill; and
♦ The scheme will be centrally located within the supply area.
The cons of this alternative are:
♦ Resistance from Eskom could be encountered as it will require DWAF to

reduce their water allocation;
♦ The overall available water will be lower as the scheme will be located higher
up within the catchment. Additional augmentation will be required after 2033.

Please note that the bulk reticulation and storage infrastructure installed to
supply the study area until 2033 can be incorporated into an extended
scheme post 2033. All that will be needed is to link the additional source into
this network of infrastructure.
6.2 Option 2 - Second Falls Regional Water Supply Scheme
This option entails building a regional water supply scheme that extracts the full 167.4
Mℓ per day from the Mthatha River just downstream of the Second Falls hydro scheme.
As stated in Section 3.1.6 (Note 2) the river has sufficient capacity to supply this
volume of water. This scheme will replace the current Mthatha water supply scheme.
Please note that the river level below the falls is approximately 440m above sea level.
This option will require an additional extraction permit from DWAF to enable ORTDM to
extract water directly from the Mthatha River below the Second Falls hydro scheme. It
will also require an alteration to the current extraction permit to enable the water to be
released downstream from the Mthatha Dam for extraction below the Second Falls.
Should these extraction permits be granted then this scheme will require the following:
♦ Construct a storage weir (and off channel storage) across the Mthatha River
below the Second Falls hydro scheme that is capable of storing the required
volume of water. As water is discharged daily down the Mthatha River it is
expected that a few days worth of storage will be sufficient to safeguard this
supply option;
♦ Provide a new treatment works in the vicinity of the Second Falls hydro
scheme to treat 167.4 Mℓ per day;
reservoirs;
reservoirs;
♦ The water extraction point below the Second Falls will allow more water to be
extracted from the Mthatha River than compared with option 1. This will
mean that no further augmentation will be required until well after 2038.
♦ The location is unlikely to receive an objection from Eskom as it will not
require a reduction of their water allocation from DWAF; and
♦ The location of the extraction works will allow DWAF to sell a portion of the
water to two users, first to Eskom and second to ORTDM.

♦ The capital costs will be higher than option 1 as more infrastructure (water
extraction, treatment, pump stations and bulk supply pipelines) will be
needed;
♦ The O&M costs will be higher that option 1 as more pumping will be required;
♦ The scheme will not be suitably located within the supply area as it is located
on the lower side of the supply area;
♦ The scheme will not be locally located to the ORTDM offices in Mthatha;
♦ The solution will need to address the silt problem that occurs in the Mthatha
River; and
♦ This solution will mean that valuable infrastructure at Thornhill will be made
redundant. The replacement cost of this infrastructure is estimate at
approximately R600 million excluding VAT (in 2008).
In the event that this option is selected then ORTDM should target pumping during
Eskom’s off peak hours. In so doing they will be using Eskom’s surplus electricity and
will be able to negotiate a reduced electricity tariff with them.
6.3 Option 3 - Two Regional Water Supply Schemes
This option entails utilising the full volume available for domestic consumption from the
Mthatha Dam (90 Mℓ per day). In addition to this a second regional water supply
scheme below the Second Falls hydro scheme will be provided. The second water
supply scheme will need an ultimate capacity of 77.4 Mℓ per day. Water from the
upgraded Mthatha water supply scheme can be used to supply Mthatha and the upper
areas of the supply area. Water from the Second Falls water supply scheme can be
used to supply the balance of the supply area down to the coast. Please note that the
river level below the falls is approximately 440m above sea level.
This option will require an additional extraction permit from DWAF to enable ORTDM to
extract 90 Mℓ per day from the Mthatha Dam and the balance of the water directly from
the Mthatha River below the Second Falls hydro scheme.
Upgrading of the Mthatha Water Supply Scheme will require the following:
♦ Upgrade the Thornhill works;

reservoirs;
reservoirs;

To provide a Second Falls Water Supply Scheme will require the following:
♦ Construct a storage weir (and off channel storage) across the Mthatha River
below the Second Falls hydro scheme that is capable of storing the required
volume of water. As water is discharged daily down the Mthatha River it is
expected that a few days worth of storage will be sufficient to safeguard this
supply option;
♦ Provide a new treatment works in the vicinity of the Second Falls hydro
scheme to treat 77.4 Mℓ per day;
reservoirs;
reservoirs;
♦ The capital costs will be lower than option two as some existing infrastructure
will be used;
♦ The O&M costs will be lower than option two as less pumping will be required
for the water treated at Thornhill;
♦ A portion of the scheme will be conveniently located to the ORTDM office in
Mthatha. This will assist with the operation and management of the scheme;
♦ This option will allow for using the existing infrastructure at Thornhill;
♦ The second water extraction point below the Second Falls will allow more
water to be extracted from the Mthatha River that compared with option 1.
This will mean that no further augmentation will be required until after 2038.
♦ The location is unlikely to receive an objection from Eskom as it will not
require a reduction of their water allocation from DWAF; and
♦ The location of the extraction works will allow DWAF to sell a portion of the
water to two users, first to Eskom and second to ORTDM.
♦ The Second Falls portion of the scheme will be centrally located to that
portion of the in the supply area;
♦ The capital costs will be higher than option 1 as more infrastructure (water
extraction, treatment, pump stations and bulk supply pipelines) will be
needed;
♦ The O&M costs will be higher that option 1 as more pumping will be required;
♦ The Second Falls portion of the scheme will not be locally located to the
ORTDM offices in Mthatha;
♦ The solution will need to address the silt problem that occurs in the Mthatha
River; and
♦ It will require ORTDM to operate two sets of infrastructure for their regional
water supply scheme.

7 PROJECT PHASING
Each of the augmentation options proposed (see section 6) can be implemented in

phases to spread the budgetary requirements. The initial implementation phase should
target supplying sufficient water to those that do not have an RDP level of water
supply. The bulk pipelines provided through this will need to be sized for the ultimate
demand to minimise any redundant work.

8 WHOLE LIFE COST
A schematic design for each of the augmentation options was developed. This design
was used as the basis. Refer to Appendix 6. A whole life cost model was developed for
each of the three options proposed using these schematic designs. Each model
includes both the construction costs as well as the operation and maintenance costs.
8.1 Construction Costs
The construction costs for each option are discussed below.
8.1.1 Option 1 – Thornhill Regional Water Supply Scheme
The whole life cost model for option 1 is based on the schematic design included in
Appendix 6.1.
This option is based on the fact that the increase in return flows expected as a result of
the increased water demand will increase the water availability from the Mthatha Dam
from 150 Mℓ per day to 167.4 Mℓ per day required to meet the 2038 demand. This will
need to be validated in 2028 to allow sufficient timing for the development of an
additional source should it not be the case.
The construction costs for this option includes for the following:
♦ Upgrading the raw water pipeline from the dam to the treatment works;
♦ Upgrading the treatment works in 15 Mℓ increments to meet the predicted
water demand;
♦ Provision of additional clear water storage reservoirs throughout the supply
area;
♦ Provision of bulk rising main pipelines to the upper reaches of the supply
area. It is anticipated that approximately 60% of the water will need to be
pumped for an average head of 200m; and
♦ Provision of bulk gravity pipelines distributing water from either the rising
mains or the treatment works to within 15km of each village in the supply
area.
8.1.2 Option 2 – Second Falls Regional Water Supply Scheme
Appendix 6.2.
♦ Provision of a suitably sized weir and off channel storage for extraction of the
raw water;
♦ Provisions of a new treatment works capable of supply the full demand of the
study area. This is provided in 15 Mℓ increments to meet the predicted water
demand;
area;

area. It is anticipated that approximately 80% of the water will need to be
pumped for an average head of 450m; and
area.
8.1.3 Option 3 – Hybrid Regional Water Supply Scheme
Appendix 6.3.
This option is based on 90 Mℓ being supplied directly out of the Mthatha Dam with the
balance 77.4 Mℓ being extracted and treated below the Second Falls hydro scheme.
♦ Upgrading the raw water pipeline from the dam to the Thornhill Treatment
Works;
♦ Upgrading the Thornhill Treatment Works in 15 Mℓ increments up to a
capacity of 90 Mℓ per day;
♦ Provision of a suitably sized weir and off channel storage for extraction of the
raw water below the Second Falls hydro scheme;
♦ Provisions of a new treatment works capable of supplying 77.4 Mℓ per day.
This is provided in 15 Mℓ increments to meet the predicted water demand;
area;
area from both treatment works. It is anticipated that approximately 80% of
the water will need to be pumped for an average head of 300m; and
area.
Each of the whole life cost models excludes for the following:
♦ Pipelines linking the gravity mains / bulk storage reservoirs with the individual
villages
♦ Reticulation pipelines within each village
Please note that the pipeline route selection for each schematic designs is not
necessarily the optimum route. The optimum routes will be determined during the
preliminary design stage of the project when the layout of the land (roads, contours,
etc) will be considered.
8.2 Operating Costs
In determining the O&M costs of each option DWAF and WSSA were approached for
guidance on the appropriate costs. DWAF were approached to determine the cost of
the raw water. Water and Sanitation Services South Africa (WSSA) were approached
for guidance on the other operating costs to be included in the whole life cost model.
WSSA manage, refurbish, operate and maintain a number of water supply schemes
across South Africa.

The following operating costs were taken into account:
♦ Cost of the raw water. These costs were obtained from DWAF. It must be
noted that as the demand increases DWAF have stated that the water tariff
will decrease per m3. However, for the purpose of this exercise the costs
have been based on 2008 costs and escalated at 10% per annum.
♦ Treatment costs – WSSA have provided us with an average cost to treat 1 Ml
per day of water using a conventional slow sand filtration works. Their cost
included for chemical dosing.
♦ Pumping costs - WSSA have provided us with an average cost to pump 1Ml
of water per day for an average head of 100m. This costs has been
extrapolated by the required volume and head to be pumped.
♦ Repairs / refurbishments – and allowance has been made each year for
repairs and refurbishment of the infrastructure. This allowance starts off at
0.1% of the total construction cost of the option and increases by 0.3% each
year.
8.3 Cost Summary
In determining the whole life cost for each option an escalation factor of 10% per
annum was used.
Table 12 below summarises the Net Present Value outputs, base dated 2008, for the
whole life costing for each option. The full whole life cost model of each option can be
found in Appendix 7.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Construction Cost (Millions) R2 686 R3 568 R2 868
Operating Cost (Millions) R2 158 R3 293 R2 444
TOTAL COST (Millions) R4 844 R6 861 R5 312
Cost per m3 of water R3.46 R4.90 R3.91
Table 12: Whole Life Costing - Summary
From a review of Table 12 it can be seen that Option 1 has the lowest whole life cost
as well as cost per m3 of water treated and consumed. However, it must be noted that
this option will require a significant reduction in Eskom’s water allocation from the
Mthatha Dam which might not make this option a viable option.
Option 2 is the most expensive as this option will require the scrapping of the Thornhill
Treatment Works and the provision of the required infrastructure for the full demand of
the supply area. This operating costs of this option are also higher as the volume of
water and head to be pumped is higher than the other two options.
Option 3 is slightly higher than option 1 in terms of construction and operating costs.
This is because of the new extraction infrastructure required below the Second Falls
hydro scheme and the increase volume and head of water to be pumped. Despite this
increased cost this option is a viable option as it will not require a reduction in Eskom’s
water allocation for the two hydro schemes on the Mthatha River.

9 PRELIMINARY DESIGNS
To develop the scheme to an implementation readiness level that will enable Amatola
Water and ORTDM to apply for funding from DWAF we recommend that the chosen
option be developed to a preliminary design level.
In parallel with this the DWAF Planning Department should be approached to

undertake a water allocation assessment of the Mthatha Dam and River. This is
required to get their agreement as to the volume of water that they can allocate to
ORTDM for domestic consumption. This will need to be concluded with the necessary
water use licenses issued in favour of ORTDM before funding will be provided for the
implementation phase of the project.
From a recent workshop organised by DWAF it was noted that the following will need
to be included in the implementation readiness proposal before Amatola Water and
ORTDM will be able to apply for Bulk Infrastructure Grant Funding for the project
implementation phase:
♦ Develop a scoping report (this feasibility study can be used as the basis of
the scoping report);
♦ Investigate and agree on the ownership of the scheme;
♦ Develop the design of the chosen alternative and show why it is the most
appropriate water supply solution;
♦ Assess the social and economic component of the scheme (social is referred
to the element of the population that cannot afford to pay for water);
♦ Confirm the water resource availability through the DWAF Planning
Department and securing the necessary water use licenses;
♦ Investigate and agree on the most appropriate operations and maintenance
(O&M) solution for the scheme. This must include who will be responsible for
O&M and what are the whole life costs of the O&M;
♦ Investigate and agree who will be responsible for implementing the scheme
and overseeing the O&M element of the scheme;
♦ Develop a detailed cost model defining the capital and O&M costs. This must
take possible phasing into account; and
♦ Ensure that the scheme is contained on the relevant IDP and WSDP.
ARCUS GIBB’s appointment included for the planning and preliminary design of the
preferred water supply augmentation option. It must be noted that the budget approved
for this appointment only covers the feasibility report stage and excludes the
preliminary design stage. To complete the preliminary design the appointment value
will need to be extended by an additional R1 402 223.00, excluding VAT. This will
increase ARCUS GIBB’s appointment value from R905 978.00 to R2 308 201.00, both
excluding VAT. It must be noted that the fee proposed to complete the study to
implementation readiness stage equates to less than 0.09% of the construction cost of
the cheapest augmentation option proposed.
A breakdown of the work to be covered by this additional funding is listed in table 13

below.

Preliminary Design
Raw Water Supply Pipeline R 48 778.00
Second Falls Extraction Works R 150 296.00
Treatment Works R 156 948.00
Pipeline routes and reservoir location R 285 242.00
Pumping input R 133 948.00
Subtotal R 775 212.00
Implementation Readiness Activities
Confirm scheme ownership R 60 127.00
Assess the social / economic components R 17 415.00
DWAF Planning coordination (water use licences) R 38 972.00
Finalise the O&M requirements and responsibilities R 48 102.00
Agree implementation responsibility R 33 753.00
Update the whole life cost model R 42 072.00
Project Management & reporting R 316 420.00
Disbursements
Travel (10 000km @ R3.00) R 30 000.00
Accommodation (10 days @ R500.00 / day) R 5 000.00
Subsistence (10 days @ R150 / day) R 1 500.00
Printing - A4 (15 000 pages @ R0.50 / page) R 7 500.00
Plotting - A0 (250 sheets @ R85.00 / sheet) R 21 150.00
Telephones (4 months @ R500.00 / month) R 5 000.00
Subtotal R1 402 223.00
VAT (14%) R 196 311.22
TOTAL R1 598 534.22
Table 13: Fee Proposal
Please note that should option 1 be selected for development to preliminary design
stage then this fee proposal will be reduced by R150 296.00, exclusive of VAT.
The above fees have been calculated on the basis of the work anticipated to deliver the
elements listed in Table 13. They are based on the instruction to continue with the work
being received by no later than 31 March 2009. The fees are also based on the
continued support and availability of the necessary authorities within ORTDM, DWAF
and Amatola Water to aid with negotiating and agreeing on the various elements
required to get the project to implementation readiness status.
From an assessment of the work required it is estimated that this work will take five
months to complete. This will exclude the securing of the required water use licences
as this could take substantially longer for DWAF to finalise. Please note that this work
will require substantial liaison with Amatola Water and ORTDM regarding ownership
and O&M.
We propose that a variation order be put in place to increase the value of this
appointment to R1 402 223.00, exclusive of VAT.

9.1 Water Supply Standards
The design standards proposed for the development of the water scheme is in
accordance with the DWAF Guidelines and the "Red Book" ("Guidelines for the
Provision of Engineering Services and Amenities in Residential Township
Development") as well as a number of relevant SABS Codes.
Where possible, the minimum infrastructure requirement will be used. Bulk pipelines
will however, be designed for future extensions.
The criteria shown in Tables 14 and 15 will be used in sizing the different components.
These are as specified in the abovementioned DWAF guidelines.
Design Horizon 10 years from Commissioning for pipelines and

reticulations, 5-10 years for all other civil works
Population 10 years from Commissioning for pipelines and
reticulations, 5-10 years for all other civil works
House Occupancy 6 persons
Design Water Usage: Refer to Section 4.3
Design Loss Factors: Refer to Section 4.4
Gross Average Annual Daily GAADD = (1 + LF) * AADD
Demand (GAADD):
Summer Peak Factor: SPF = 1,2
Summer Daily Demand, Bulk SDDpl = SPF * GAADD
Supply Pipelines, (SDDpl):
Storage Reservoirs; 48 Hrs * AADD Pumped from one source
36 Hrs * AADD from Gravity source
Storage volumes split roughly equal between

regional and village storage for new reservoirs, but a
minimum of 20 hours is provided at village storage.
Reinforced concrete structures provided throughout.
Elevated Tank/Tower: (Only 4 Hrs * AADD (only for area to be served by tank)
required to provide reticulation
pressures)
Design of pipeline flow between 2 * GAADD (Pumped: 20hrs/day)
main storage and elevated tank
Design Peak Factor (for DPF = 2
Reticulations):
Residual Pressures (above GL): 10m minimum at point of delivery
Pipe depth of cover; Minimum depth of cover to main pipelines:
Generally: 600mm
Under cultivated land: 900mm
Road/Railway crossings: 1000mm
Pump Control: i) Top inlet to storage.
ii) High Pressure/ no flow cut-out switch for
pumps – must always switch off even when
on manual.
iii) Time delay restart for pumps - 3 hours
iv) Manual override switch for starting and
stopping of pumps.
Table 14: Rural Water Supply Design Criteria Guidelines

Water Guidelines:
Reticulation Peak Factor 3.2 x AADD

Provision of fire hydrants 120m
Fire flow No Allowance to be made
Residual Pressures (above GL): 7-8m
Pipe depth of cover; Minimum depth of cover to main pipelines:
Servitudes: 600mm
Sidewalks: 1400mm below kerb level
Road carriageways: 1200mm below road level
Table 13: Red Book Design Criteria Guidelines for Urban Water Supply
The proposed regional schemes should be designed to allow for the expansion of the
existing schemes and a higher level of service. The upgrading of the existing water
infrastructure should also be considered. Training of municipal staff to operate and
maintain the infrastructure with the correct procedures is critical to the successful
operation of the scheme.

10 CONCLUSIONS
This report covers the investigation of the water supply capability of the Mthatha Dam
and its ability to supply the inhabitants of the KSD, Nyandeni and Mhlontlo local
municipalities.
Based on the census 2001 population data, a growth rate of 1.83% of rural inhabitants
and 3% for urban inhabitants the 2038 population of the supply area is estimated to be
almost 1.8 million. Applying a daily water demand of 200 litres for urban inhabitants
and 60 litres for rural inhabitants as well as taking into account industrial demand and
water losses means that ORTDM will need a supply of 167.4 Mℓ per day to supply the
inhabitants of the supply area.
The safe yield of the Mthatha Dam was identified as 398.63 Mℓ per day. Of this Eskom
has access to 338.63 Mℓ per day. When one considers the return flows from Mthatha
ORTDM can extract 91.8 Mℓ per day from the Mthatha Dam for domestic consumption.
Should ORTDM choose to extract water below Eskom’s Second Falls hydro scheme
then they will be able to extract 265.3 Mℓ per day without negatively impacting on the
river or estuary environment. Currently ORTDM only have 58.9 Mℓ per day allocated to
them by DWAF from the Mthatha Dam.
There are a number of water treatment works within the study area with a combined
treatment capacity of 73.9 Mℓ per day. The main treatment works is the Thornhill
Treatment Works, which is located at Mthatha and has a capacity of 60 Mℓ per day.
There are a number of bulk storage reservoirs in the supply area with a combined
storage of 83.8 Mℓ.
Three water supply augmentation options were identified to supply water to the supply
area. The first is to extract all 167.4 Mℓ per day from the Mthatha Dam, treat it at an
extended Thornhill Treatment Works and pump it to the upper reaches of the supply
area, from where it will be gravity fed across the supply area. This option will require a
significant reduction in Eskom’s water allocation by DWAF. This could encounter
significant opposition given the current electricity supply situation in South Africa.
The second option will require the establishment of raw water extraction facilities below
the Second Falls Hydro Scheme to extract 167.4 Mℓ per day. The water will be treated
at a new treatment works and pumped to the upper reaches of the supply area, from
where it will be gravity fed across the supply area.
The third option requires the extension of the Thornhill work to treat 90 Mℓ per day and
then obtain the balance of the water below the Second Falls hydro scheme, from where
it will be treated and pumped to the upper reaches of the supply area, from where it will
be gravity fed across the supply area. Each of the three options will require additional
water use licences from DWAF.
A 30 year whole life cost study of the three options indicates that the most cost
effective option will be Option 1 at R4 844 million, including O&M costs. This equates to
an average cost of R3.46 per m3 of treated water consumed. Option 2 will cost R6 861
million with an average cost of R4.90 per m3 of treated water consumed. Option 3
comes in at R5 312 million, including O&M costs with an average cost of 3.91 per m3 of
treated water consumed.

On the basis of the whole life cost model and Eskom’s rights to the bulk of the water in
the Mthatha Dam it is concluded that Option 3 is the most viable option to augment
ORTDM’s current water supply.
To develop the feasibility study to implementation readiness level will require a

preliminary design to be undertaken on the selected option. For ARCUS GIBB to do
this will require their appointment value to be extended by R 1 402 223.00, excluding
VAT.

11 RECOMENDATIONS
On the basis of the report it is recommended that:
1. Option 3 is selected for development to implementation readiness level, which

includes developing the option to a preliminary design level;
2. DWAF Planning be approached by Amatola Water / DWAF to investigate reducing
Eskom’s water allocation;
3. DWAF Planning be approached by Amatola Water / DWAF to obtain the necessary
water use licences;
4. ARCUS GIBB’s appointment value be extended by R 1 402 223.00 to cover the
development of Option 3 to implementation readiness stage, which will include the
preliminary design.

APPENDIX 1
Locality Map

APPENDIX 2
Water Supply Schemes

APPENDIX 2.1
KSD Water Supply Schemes

APPENDIX 2.2
Nyandeni Water Supply Schemes

APPENDIX 2.3
Mhlontlo Water Supply Schemes

APPENDIX 3
Environmental Assessment

1. INTRODUCTION
The Directorate of Water Resources Planning of the Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry (DWAF), appointed a consortium in 1999, to undertake a Basin Study of the
Mthatha Catchment (Drainage Region T20) and the two adjacent Catchments
(Drainage Regions T70 and T80). The study area is situated in the former Transkei
Region of the Eastern Cape Province and covers an area of approximately 5 500 km²,
which includes Mthatha, the capital city of the former Transkei.
The Mthatha River is one of the most important rivers in the former Transkei Region
due to the various users and consumers who rely on the Mthatha River for their water
supply. The demand for water in the urban and rural areas is increasing rapidly and
the supply of water is the key to future development of the region.
This report presents a desktop review of available studies and documents the
environmental opportunities and constraints associated with utilising the Mthatha
River as a resource for additional water extraction.
1.1 Previous Reserve-related studies
The Mthatha River Basin Study (MRBS) was commissioned to assess the water
resources of the Mthatha River Basin and two adjacent areas to ensure that further
development in the study area must be undertaken in a properly planned, coordinated
and equitable manner. Increasing urban, rural domestic and hydropower
requirements for water from the Mthatha Dam could to lead to further competition
between the different user groups, especially during periods of drought.
1.2 Environmental Overview
Other than hydropower, the largest “user” of water is the environment, mainly due to
the existing pristine nature of the estuaries of the rivers within the study area.
In order of magnitude terms and on an annual basis, the tables on page i and ii of
volume 13 (Water Requirements) of the MRBS, show that there is a surplus of water
for each quaternary catchment for the twenty year planning period. This does not
mean that there are no months when deficiencies will occur should dependence be
placed on run of river water supply schemes. Detailed hydrological analyses and
systems analyses would need to be undertaken in each instance.
The purpose of the Water Requirements (Volume 13) study task was to provide
estimates of the current and projected water requirements within the study area up to
the year 2020. The projected water requirements were based on growth scenarios for
the following user groups:
• Hydropower generation
• Environmental
• Urban centres (including domestic and industrial)
• Rural (domestic)

• Mining
• Irrigation
• Livestock
• Forestry
• Inter-basin transfers out of the study area
Where relevant, the report made mention of the difference between the consumptive
use of water (such as domestic demand) and the non-consumptive use of water (such
as hydropower generation), as well as return flows.
The Mthatha dam has a 1 in 50 year yield of 145,5 million m³/annum of which 21,9
million m³/annum (60 Mℓ/d) is currently allocated to the Mthatha Water Supply
Scheme, which is approximately 15% of dam yield. The remainder is used for
hydropower generation dependent upon Eskom’s requirements.
Eskom operates two hydro-electricity generating stations, which are located at First
and Second Falls on the Mthatha River. Hydro station records for the period 1981 to
1998 indicate that an average of 170 million m³ per annum was utilised for the
generation of hydropower with a maximum of 240 million m³. This is made possible by
the storage capacity of Mthatha Dam of 254 million m³. Operating rules and
arrangements between Eskom and DWAF determine the quantity of water that may
be released in any month for hydropower generation. The result of this hydropower
generation is that more water is released during the winter months than the summer
months. This is a reversal of the natural flow situation which has implications for
environmental aspects.
The Mthatha River Basin Study does emphasize that the preliminary estimates
provided in this study should be followed by more accurate assessments based on
accurate data.
1.3 Environmental Water Requirements
The environmental water requirements are divided into riverine requirements and
estuarine requirements as detailed below
1.3.1 Riverine Water Requirements
The MRBS states that it should be borne in mind that the uses of a % MAR (Mean
Annual Runoff) to determine an environmental water requirement is simplistic. Each
river requires a determined discharge for each month of the year. However, for the
sake of determining an annual water requirement for each quaternary catchment for
this task the use of a % MAR is considered adequate. See Table 1 below.

Table 1: Riverine Water Requirements (Table 11.1 of MRBS Volume 13)
1.3.2 Estuarine Water Requirements
The water requirements stated in the MRBS are the very minimum requirements and
do not take into account the need for fresh water pulses, reversal of seasonal flow
patterns etc. The MRBS comments that the estimates of percentage MAR for
estuarine reserve requirements are simplistic and have low confidence factors.
Further studies are essential to improve this confidence factor. (See Table 2 below)

Table 2: Estuarine Water Requirements (Table 11.2 of MRBS Volume 13)

1.4 Environmental Conclusions
Although there is no problem with the Instream Flow Requirement (IFR) for the
Mthatha River, which is always fully supplied, the high winter flows however appear to
cause a problem with regards to the Estuary requirements which require lower flows
in winter. The only means of providing low winter flows would be the reduction of
power generation during these months.
The MRBS indicates that there is ample water in the Mthatha River basin to support
all existing and likely future demands. At the time of the MRBS, the available yield
was of the order of 10 times the 1999 requirement of Mthatha. The Mthatha River
basin is thus one of the few areas in South Africa where there is a large surplus of
water at a high assurance of supply.
The results of the MRBS suggest that there is no major problem in supplying the
existing and likely future water requirements for the Mngazi River catchment area.
However it should be noted that the flow sequences used for this catchment were
simulated from rainfall and recommended simulation parameters. Therefore the level
of confidence regarding the low flows is poor and it may be necessary to revise the
streamflow sequences using recorded flow data in future. The study states that there
is currently no means of establishing more realistic flow sequences for this catchment
since the only flow gauge in operation (T7H001) has unreliable data.
The main conclusions derived from the MRBS which are associated with
environmental issues are as follows:
• Surface water resources exceed the projected consumptive and

environmental water requirements to the year 2020 on an annualized
basis for all three tertiary catchments (T20, T70, T80).
• Estimated that groundwater resources exceed the projected
consumptive water requirements to the year 2020 for the whole study
area but availability and quality are generally poor.
• Potential irrigation is limited to approximately 1 200 ha with subtropical
crops, nuts and vegetables in the Mngazi and Mngazana catchments
considered the favoured crops.
• Commercial forestry expansion in the upper reaches of the Mthatha
River catchment has high potential.
• Eco-tourism potential is high around river estuaries and coastal forests.
• Sanitation infrastructure is totally inadequate. This includes both the
rural villages and urban centers.
• Environmental data for determining the environmental reserves of the
rivers is lacking.
• The Mthatha sewage treatment works and the prison treatment works
are overloaded and are responsible for pollution of the Mthatha River.

Based on the system analysis results, the following environmental related
recommendations were made in the MRBS with regards to the Mthatha and Mngazi
River basins:
• In view of the environmental concerns, it may be necessary to review

the power generation on the Mthatha River and establish if it is
financially worthwhile. The decision on the hydropower situation will
however be taken at a higher level of authority.
• The upgrading of the Mthatha Sewage Treatment Works is essential.
Approximately 36 % of the current Mthatha effluent returns to the river
system untreated. This situation will worsen as the Mthatha demand
increases or unless a conservation and demand management
programme is introduced.

Summary of Water Requirements (Year 2000) - High Growth Scenario
MAR Available
(million m3 /
annum) kl/day Available
T80A 0 1007 740 197 - 0 0 42936 83425 0 85369 31.16 40.6 76.7 9.44 25863.0137
T80B 0 647 849 132 - 0 0 37225 91616 0 93244 34.03 35.2 96.7 1.17 3205.479452
T80C 128 1191 1096 0 - 0 0 30457 71014 0 73429 26.8 28.8 93.1 2 5479.452055
T80D 0 876 1014 132 - 0 0 50339 117370 0 119392 43.58 47.6 91.6 4.02 11013.69863
Sub T80 128 3721 3699 461 0 0 0 160957 363425 0 371434 135.57 152.2 16.63 45561.64384
T70A 0 974 329 214 - 0 0 31713 91479 0 92996 33.94 37.1 91.5 3.16 8657.534247
T70B 0 1027 164 1775 - 485 0 44278 127726 0 131177 47.88 51.8 92.4 3.92 10739.72603
T70C 0 513 603 0 - 0 0 25473 65315 0 66431 24.25 29.8 81.4 5.55 15205.47945
T70D 0 835 192 411 - 0 0 57869 148384 0 149822 54.69 67.7 80.8 13.01 35643.83562
T70E 170 651 712 0 - 0 0 20344 52164 0 53697 19.6 23.8 82.4 4.2 11506.84932
T70F 201 684 822 247 - 0 0 34106 87452 0 89406 32.63 39.9 81.8 7.27 19917.80822
T70G 0 655 822 99 - 0 0 35901 92055 0 93631 34.18 42 81.4 7.82 21424.65753
Sub T70 371 5339 3644 2746 0 485 0 249684 664575 0 677160 247.17 292.1 44.93 123095.8904
T20A 0 660 1370 ? - 0 0 47790 147709 104 149739 54.65 126.4 43.2 71.75 196575.3425
T20B 0 867 685 ? - 0 0 32477 100382 71 101934 37.21 85.9 43.3 48.69 133397.2603
T20C 5865 561 904 ? - 0 0 14707 45458 0 52788 19.27 38.9 49.5 19.63 53780.82192
T20D 14290 1023 1096 ? - 0 0 10964 33889 0 50298 18.36 29 63.3 10.64 29150.68493
T20E 0 994 1068 ? - 0 0 13119 40550 0 42612 15.55 34.7 44.8 19.15 52465.75342
T20F 117 1238 1534 ? - 0 0 12515 38680 0 41569 15.17 33.1 45.8 17.93 49123.28767
T20G 0 408 658 ? - 0 0 12893 39849 0 40915 14.93 34.1 43.8 19.17 52520.54795
Sub T20 20272 5751 7315 1611 0 0 0 144465 446400 175 481349 175.69 382 206.96 567013.6986
Totals 20771 14811 14658 4818 0 485 0 555106 1474400 175 1529943 558.43 826.2 268.52 735671.2329
Final Report_2008_10_27.doc 54 Rev 0 / September 2008

CATCHEMENTS – MEAN ANNUAL RUNOFF

CATCHEMENTS – AVAILABLE WATER

APPENDIX 4
DWAF Flow Data

MONTHLY FLOW VOLUMES
Measurement Station - T2H008 (measurement gauge a few kilometers downstream of the Mthatha Dam)
Average Daily Flow
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total (Ml per day)
2001/2002 # # # # # # # # 19.6 23.3 31.9 25.4+ #
2002/2003 18.9 15.3 14.5 14.6 12.8 13.4 9.93 10.3 10.5 12.5 12.4 9.67 154.8 424.1
2003/2004 8.62 6.99 1.78 1.85 0.998 1.69 2.62 10.8 3.66 7.35 7.24 7.85+ 53.598 146.8
2004/2005 8.42 3.55 2.56 44.0+ 28.4 22.1 19.9 7.65 18.4 17.3 24.6 30.5 183.38 502.4
2005/2006 35.3 7.62 3.48 2.59 0.754 0.518 0.34 12.3 15.6 11.2 29.4+ 30.9 120.602 330.4
2006/2007 72.5 60.8 55.8 35.8 27.6 26 17.9 18.2 13.8 19 17 12.9 377.3 1033.7
2007/2008 11.0 7.31 7.76 13.4 11.8 23.6+ 26.8 23.2 3.6 3.19 14.1 # #
Measurement Station - T2H009 (Flow gauge in the supply pipe to the Thornhill Treatment Works from the Mthatha Dam)
Average Daily Flow
2002/2003 # # # # 1.34 1.50 1.50 1.51 1.45 1.30 1.41 1.45 #
2003/2004 1.54 1.51 1.53 1.48 1.38 1.56 1.51 1.64 1.52 1.53 1.51 1.48 18.2 49.8
2004/2005 1.56 1.49 1.51 1.51 1.40 1.66 1.62 1.71 1.61 1.58 1.58 1.65 18.9 51.7
2005/2006 1.72 1.55 1.34 1.53 1.56 1.59 1.57 1.55 1.62 1.71 1.63 1.58 19.0 51.9
2006/2007 1.59 1.52 1.65 1.60 1.52 1.74 1.60 1.74 1.60 1.57 1.67 1.57 19.4 53.1
2007/2008 1.57 1.55 1.66 1.66 1.63 1.74 1.63 1.68 1.65 1.62 # # #
Measurement Station - T2R001 (measurement gauge over the Mthatha Dam spillway)
Average Daily Flow
1977/1978 # # # # # # # # # 0.00 0.00 0.00 #
1978/1979 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.00 2.20 19.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.82 62.5
1979/1980 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
1980/1981 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
1981/1982 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
1982/1983 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
1983/1984 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
1984/1985 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
1985/1986 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.44 7.63 2.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.46 31.4
1986/1987 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
1987/1988 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.34 7.63 3.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.09 44.1
1988/1989 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.87 7.63 5.23 2.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.36 50.3
1989/1990 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
1990/1991 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
1991/1992 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
1992/1993 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
1993/1994 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.70 0.619 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.32 31.0
1994/1995 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
1995/1996 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.80 64.00 23.30 4.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 118.61 325.0
1996/1997 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.811 50.80 4.07 0.00 0.00 65.68 179.9
1997/1998 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.46 129.00 60.80 9.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 207.98 569.8
1998/1999 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.039 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.11 3.0
1999/2000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.90 110.00 66.40 13.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 222.40 609.3
2000/2001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
2001/2002 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.40 27.40 24.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.10 208.5
2002/2003 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
2003/2004 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
2004/2005 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.30 36.30 32.30 29.80 5.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 164.38 450.4
2005/2006 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
2006/2007 57.50 55.70 56.00 37.50 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 226.70 621.1
2007/2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 # #

APPENDIX 5
Future Water Demand

WATER DEMAND CALCULATIONS
2001 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY TYPE POPULATION
KSD Urban 12 453 14 870 15 316 15 775 16 248 16 736 17 238 17 755 18 288 18 836 19 401 19 983 20 583 21 200 21 836 22 492 23 166
KSD Rural 399 418 445 330 453 480 461 778 470 229 478 834 487 597 496 520 505 606 514 859 524 281 533 875 543 645 553 594 563 724 574 040 584 545
KSD TOTAL 411 871 460 200 468 795 477 553 486 477 495 570 504 835 514 275 523 894 533 695 543 682 553 858 564 228 574 794 585 561 596 532 607 712
Mhlontlo Urban 3 162 3 776 3 889 4 006 4 126 4 249 4 377 4 508 4 644 4 783 4 926 5 074 5 226 5 383 5 545 5 711 5 882
Mhlontlo Rural 194 561 216 925 220 895 224 937 229 054 233 245 237 514 241 860 246 286 250 793 255 383 260 056 264 816 269 662 274 596 279 622 284 739
Mhlontlo TOTAL 197 723 220 701 224 784 228 943 233 179 237 495 241 891 246 369 250 930 255 576 260 309 265 131 270 042 275 045 280 141 285 332 290 621
Nyandeni Urban 4 216 5 034 5 185 5 341 5 501 5 666 5 836 6 011 6 191 6 377 6 568 6 765 6 968 7 177 7 393 7 615 7 843
Nyandeni Rural 292 121 325 700 331 660 337 729 343 910 350 203 356 612 363 138 369 783 376 550 383 441 390 458 397 604 404 880 412 289 419 834 427 517
Nyandeni TOTAL 296 337 330 734 336 845 343 070 349 411 355 869 362 448 369 149 375 975 382 928 390 010 397 224 404 572 412 057 419 682 427 449 435 360
TOTAL POPULATION Urban 19 831 23 679 24 390 25 121 25 875 26 651 27 451 28 274 29 122 29 996 30 896 31 823 32 778 33 761 34 774 35 817 36 892
TOTAL POPULATION Rural 886 100 987 955 1 006 035 1 024 445 1 043 192 1 062 283 1 081 723 1 101 518 1 121 676 1 142 203 1 163 105 1 184 390 1 206 064 1 228 135 1 250 610 1 273 496 1 296 801
TOTAL POPULATION 905 931 1 011 634 1 030 424 1 049 566 1 069 067 1 088 934 1 109 173 1 129 792 1 150 798 1 172 199 1 194 001 1 216 213 1 238 842 1 261 896 1 285 384 1 309 313 1 333 693
WATER DEMAND
Urban (l/Day/person) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Urban Demand Total (m3/Day) 3 966 4 736 4 878 5 024 5 175 5 330 5 490 5 655 5 824 5 999 6 179 6 365 6 556 6 752 6 955 7 163 7 378
Rural (l/Day/person) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Rural Demand Total (m3/Day) 53 166 59 277 60 362 61 467 62 592 63 737 64 903 66 091 67 301 68 532 69 786 71 063 72 364 73 688 75 037 76 410 77 808
Industrial Demand (m3/Day) 7 932 9 472 9 756 10 049 10 350 10 660 10 980 11 310 11 649 11 998 12 358 12 729 13 111 13 504 13 910 14 327 14 757
Subtotal 65 065 73 485 74 996 76 539 78 117 79 728 81 374 83 056 84 774 86 530 88 324 90 157 92 030 93 945 95 901 97 900 99 943
Water Losses (%) 50% 50% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
Water Losses (Volume) 32 532 36 742 37 498 34 443 31 247 27 905 24 412 20 764 16 955 17 306 17 665 18 031 18 406 18 789 19 180 19 580 19 989
Total (Ml/day) 98 110 112 111 109 108 106 104 102 104 106 108 110 113 115 117 120
% Yield needed for Domestic Purposes 24% 28% 28% 28% 27% 27% 27% 26% 26% 26% 27% 27% 28% 28% 29% 29% 30%
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY TYPE POPULATION
KSD Urban 23 861 24 577 25 314 26 074 26 856 27 662 28 492 29 346 30 227 31 134 32 068 33 030 34 020 35 041 36 092 37 175
KSD Rural 595 243 606 136 617 228 628 523 640 025 651 738 663 664 675 809 688 177 700 770 713 594 726 653 739 951 753 492 767 281 781 322
KSD TOTAL 619 104 630 713 642 542 654 597 666 881 679 399 692 156 705 156 718 403 731 904 745 662 759 683 773 971 788 533 803 373 818 497
Mhlontlo Urban 6 059 6 240 6 428 6 621 6 819 7 024 7 234 7 451 7 675 7 905 8 142 8 387 8 638 8 897 9 164 9 439
Mhlontlo Rural 289 949 295 255 300 659 306 161 311 763 317 469 323 278 329 194 335 219 341 353 347 600 353 961 360 438 367 034 373 751 380 591
Mhlontlo TOTAL 296 008 301 496 307 086 312 781 318 583 324 492 330 513 336 646 342 894 349 258 355 742 362 348 369 077 375 932 382 916 390 030
Nyandeni Urban 8 078 8 321 8 570 8 827 9 092 9 365 9 646 9 935 10 233 10 540 10 857 11 182 11 518 11 863 12 219 12 586
Nyandeni Rural 435 341 443 307 451 420 459 681 468 093 476 659 485 382 494 264 503 309 512 520 521 899 531 450 541 175 551 079 561 164 571 433
Nyandeni TOTAL 443 419 451 628 459 990 468 508 477 185 486 024 495 028 504 200 513 543 523 060 532 756 542 632 552 693 562 942 573 383 584 019
TOTAL POPULATION Urban 37 998 39 138 40 312 41 522 42 767 44 050 45 372 46 733 48 135 49 579 51 066 52 598 54 176 55 802 57 476 59 200
TOTAL POPULATION Rural 1 320 533 1 344 698 1 369 306 1 394 365 1 419 881 1 445 865 1 472 325 1 499 268 1 526 705 1 554 643 1 583 093 1 612 064 1 641 565 1 671 605 1 702 196 1 733 346
TOTAL POPULATION 1 358 531 1 383 836 1 409 619 1 435 886 1 462 649 1 489 916 1 517 696 1 546 001 1 574 840 1 604 223 1 634 160 1 664 662 1 695 741 1 727 407 1 759 672 1 792 546
WATER DEMAND
Urban (l/Day/person) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Urban Demand Total (m3/Day) 7 600 7 828 8 062 8 304 8 553 8 810 9 074 9 347 9 627 9 916 10 213 10 520 10 835 11 160 11 495 11 840
Rural (l/Day/person) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Rural Demand Total (m3/Day) 79 232 80 682 82 158 83 662 85 193 86 752 88 339 89 956 91 602 93 279 94 986 96 724 98 494 100 296 102 132 104 001
Industrial Demand (m3/Day) 15 199 15 655 16 125 16 609 17 107 17 620 18 149 18 693 19 254 19 832 20 427 21 039 21 671 22 321 22 990 23 680
Subtotal 102 031 104 165 106 346 108 575 110 853 113 182 115 563 117 996 120 483 123 026 125 625 128 283 131 000 133 777 136 617 139 521
Water Losses (%) 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
Water Losses (Volume) 20 406 20 833 21 269 21 715 22 171 22 636 23 113 23 599 24 097 24 605 25 125 25 657 26 200 26 755 27 323 27 904
Total (kl/day 122 437 124 998 127 615 130 290 133 024 135 819 138 675 141 595 144 580 147 631 150 751 153 939 157 200 160 533 163 941 167 425
Total (Ml/day) 122 125 128 130 133 136 139 142 145 148 151 154 157 161 164 167
% Yield needed for Domestic Purposes 31% 31% 32% 33% 33% 34% 35% 36% 36% 37% 38% 39% 39% 40% 41% 42%

APPENDIX 6
Augmentation Options

APPENDIX 6.1
Option 1: Treatment at Thornhill Treatment Works

APPENDIX 6.2
Option 2: Treatment Below the Second Falls Hydro Scheme

APPENDIX 6.3
Option 3: Hybrid Water Supply Scheme

APPENDIX 7
Whole Life Costing

APPENDIX 7.1
Whole Life Costing – Option 1

APPENDIX 7.2
Final Report_2008_10_27.doc 69 Rev 0 / October

2008
APPENDIX 7.3

DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET
(FORM IP180/B)
CLIENT : AMATOLA WATER

PROJECT NAME : MTHATHA REGIONAL WATER PROJECT No. : J28068
SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY
TITLE OF DOCUMENT : FEASIBILITY STUDY – REPORT
ELECTRONIC P:\08230\J28068_Mthatha Regional Water Supply - Feasibility Study\3-
LOCATION : Tasks\Reports\Final Report_2008_10_27.doc
Approved By Reviewed By Prepared By

NAME NAME NAME
ORIGINAL
DAVE CLARK DAVE CLARK EUGENE COTTERRELL
DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE
SEPT 2008
Prepared by Prepared By Prepared By

NAME NAME NAME
ORIGINAL

NAME NAME NAME
REVISION

NAME NAME NAME
REVISION
This report, and information or advice, which it contains, is provided by ARCUS GIBB solely for internal use and reliance by its Client in
performance of ARCUS GIBB duties and liabilities under its contract with the Client. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this
report should be read and relied upon only in the context of the report as a whole. The advice and opinions in this report are based upon
the information made available to ARCUS GIBB at the date of this report and on current SA standards, codes, technology and construction
practices as at the date of this report. Following final delivery of this report to the Client, ARCUS GIBB will have no further obligations or
duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this report. This report has
been prepared by ARCUS GIBB in their professional capacity as Consulting Engineers. The contents of the report do not, in any way,
purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion. This report is prepared in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ARCUS
GIBB contract with the Client. Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this
report. Should the Client wish to release this report to a Third Party for that party's reliance, ARCUS GIBB may, at its discretion, agree to
such release provided that:
(a) ARCUS GIBB written agreement is obtained prior to such release, and
(b) By release of the report to the Third Party, that Third Party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against
ARCUS GIBB and ARCUS GIBB, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that Third Party, and
(c) ARCUS GIBB accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of ARCUS GIBB interests
arising out of the Client's release of this report to the Third Party.
ARCUS GIBB (Pty) Ltd Website : www.Arcusgibb.co.za

Postal Address : P O Box 19844, Tecoma, 5214 Physical Address : GIBB House, 9Pearce Street, Berea,
5241
Contact Person : Eugene Cotterrell Email Address : ecotterrell@gibb.co.za
Telephone No. : 043 706 3600 Fax No. : 043 706 3658
Final Report_2008_10_27.doc
REVIEW STATEMENT
(FORM IP180A)
Applicable for Proposals, Technical Reports, Progress Reports, Tender Docs, Tender Adjudication Reports, etc –
NOT FOR DESIGN REVIEW
Project / Proposal No. ........................................... Project / Proposal Name: .......................................................................
1. Preparer to enter the details of the project and document to which this form applies, and to sign and date the form. (*PL to enter source
details where document was prepared externally e.g. sub/co-consultants.)
Preparer / (Source*): ................................................................... Date Required: ......................................................................
Document Title
Document No / Version
Document Purpose
2. Use the following checklist as guidance to assist in a systematic appraisal of the document. (V1, V2, V3 denotes the versions reviewed
– mark with a [if correct] or X [if incorrect]).
TECHNICAL REVIEW V1 V2 V3 BRIEF COMMENT

Constituent documents, drawings &
calcs reviewed.
Adequacy and appropriateness of
references (Regulations, Codes,
Standards etc.).
Accuracy of results and

recommendations.
Adequacy of assumptions.
Adequacy of argument or analysis.
Appropriateness of recommendations.
Health, Safety and Environmental

impact.
Financial, multiplier.
Contractual, Commercial, Risk.
EDITORIAL REVIEW
Project title, number and Workcode.
Table of Contents, Pagination.
Appendices, Cross-references.
Document number and version

identifier.
ARCUS GIBB report template and

front cover
Tables, Figures and Diagrams.
3. Reviewer must decide whether the document is fit for delivery in its current form or whether corrections/deletions/additions or other
alterations are required. Mark required changes in the text of the document. Return the document to the preparer, together with the
Review Statement or proceed to step 4.
4. Reviewer please sign and date the statement when satisfied with the quality of the document.
I/We have reviewed this document against the requirements of the task specification. My/Our review comments and reservations have
been resolved to my/our satisfaction. This document is presentable and technically fit for delivery. (delete as appropriate)
Reviewer .....................................................................................................................Date: ................................................................................
Comments :.................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
File original in relevant section in the Quality File. Rev 2 / March 2008

Final Report - 2008 - 10 - 27

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report - 2008 - 10 - 27

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report - 2008 - 10 - 27

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amatola Water

Mthatha Regional Water Supply

Feasibility Study - Report

Final Report_2008_10_27.doc Rev 0 / October 2008

To develop the feasibility study to implementation readiness level will require a

Final Report_2008_10_27.doc Rev 0 / October 2008

Chapter Description Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1

1.2 Aims and Objectives of the Feasibility Study 1

1.3 Geographical Scope of the Feasibility Study 2

2.1 General Description of Study Area 4

2.2 Socio- Economy 4

2.3 Infrastructure Overview 5

2.4 Climate and Vegetation 5

3 STAGE A - WATER SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY 7

3.1 Raw Water Supplies 7

3.2 Water Treatment Capacity 13

3.3 Potable Water Storage Capacity 14

4 POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND 15

4.1 Baseline Population 15

4.2 Population Growth Rates 16

4.3 Per Capita Consumption 17

4.4 Industrial Demand 17

4.5 Unaccounted for Water 18

Final Report_2008_10_27.doc Rev 0 / October 2008

5 WATER INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS 20

5.1 Scenario 1 – Retain Existing Infrastructure 20

5.2 Scenario 2 – Replace all Existing Water Supply Infrastructure 22

5.3 Gap Analysis – Conclusion 24

6 WATER SUPPLY AUGMENTATION OPTIONS 25

6.1 Option 1 - Thornhill Regional Water Supply Scheme 26

6.2 Option 2 - Second Falls Regional Water Supply Scheme 27

6.3 Option 3 - Two Regional Water Supply Schemes 28

8 WHOLE LIFE COST 31

8.1 Construction Costs 31

8.2 Operating Costs 32

8.3 Cost Summary 33

9.1 Water Supply Standards 36

Appendix 1 – Locality Map

Final Report_2008_10_27.doc Rev 0 / October 2008

1.2 Aims and Objectives of the Feasibility Study

More specific objectives, as defined in the terms of reference include:

• Stage A – Existing water supply infrastructure capacity

Final Report_2008_10_27.doc 1 Rev 0 / October 2008

• Stage C – Preliminary Design

1.3 Geographical Scope of the Feasibility Study

Figure 1: Study Area

Final Report_2008_10_27.doc 2 Rev 0 / October 2008

The following abbreviations are used in this proposal:

AADD Annual Average Daily Demand

Final Report_2008_10_27.doc 3 Rev 0 / October 2008

2.1 General Description of Study Area

The OR Tambo District Municipality comprises of seven local municipalities of which

Table 1: Study Area Statistics

The urban population is approximately 2% of the total population. The average

2.2 Socio- Economy

Approximately 9% of the population is employed. The main sources of employment are

Final Report_2008_10_27.doc 4 Rev 0 / October 2008

Mthatha is the centre of the economy in the area.