HERMANUS WATER CRISIS

At 17.30 (5.30pm) on Tuesday 13^th December in the municipal auditorium, you must definitely listen to Stephen Müller, the Overstrand Municipality’s Director of Infrastructure and Planning, when he delivers a presentation on the OM’s approach to the water crisis we are experiencing.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS - GREATER HERMANUS WATER CRISIS

Water usage of Greater Hermanus

1.       How much water does Greater Hermanus use per day (on average over the year and at peak periods, assuming there are no restrictions in place)?

Sources of Water – current

2.       What amount of the water demand of Greater Hermanus is met by De Bos?

3.       What amount of the water demand is currently met by the Gateway boreholes, what is their full licenced extraction amount and when will they be at full production?

Hemel & Aarde boreholes

4.       What amount of water will they yield?

5.       When will these be licenced, in full production and supplying water to Greater Hermanus?

Sustainability of boreholes

6.       How sustainable is all the extraction of ground water to meet such a significant portion of the water needs of Greater Hermanus?

Preekstoel developments

7.       What work is being done to re-furbish and enhance the aged Preekstoel water treatment plant and also to enable it to handle dam and borehole water?

Impending water shortages

8.       How low can De Bos Dam go before it is effectively empty and un-usable?

9.       If rains are poor, De Bos may be empty in mid-2012. What happens when the boreholes cannot then meet the full water demand of Greater Hermanus?

Level of De Bos

10.   Rainfall in the last 5 years has been close to or even better than average. Why is De Bos so low (41%) while farm dams in the Hemel & Aarde valley are full and Cape Town Dams are at 90%?

Use and diversion of water in the De Bos Catchment area

[BACKGROUND: Media reports (Times Live 21 August 2011) allege that a wealthy British farmer in the catchment area of De Bos dam is diverting water, that would otherwise enter the dam, and using it to fill his own farm dams and to irrigate water-intensive export crops. The report says that the matter is under investigation by DWAF. A visual inspection (confirmed by Google Earth) shows lush cultivation in a large part of the catchment area, and accordingly it seems possible that other farmers are likewise using lots of water in the catchment area.]

11.   What is the status of the investigation by DWAF in the Hemel & Aarde?

12.   Have the alleged infringements of water usage been stopped and if not, why not?

13.   Is the level of water-intensive irrigated-agriculture (which benefits a few) appropriate in this tiny rainfall-sensitive catchment area serving the needs of thousands living in Greater Hermanus?

14.   Do farmers also extract water from De Bos for irrigation?

Developments in the area

15.   Why are further retail and residential developments continually allowed in an area which cannot even meet current water demands?

Curbing demand

16.   Why are there no progressive water tariffs in place in this time of water crisis?

17.   What is being done to ensure compliance with municipal garden and other water restrictions, including infringements by absentee owners?

18.   Why are there no signboards at the entrances to the area indicating that this is a water crisis area?

Reclamation of sewage water

19.   What plans are there to reclaim sewage water and incorporate it in our drinking water?

20.   What amount of drinking water can be reclaimed?

21.   How safe is this reclaimed water for drinking, cooking, washing?

22.   What are the risks of contamination through plant failures and how are these to be avoided?

23.   How long will it take to get such a reclamation plant into operation?

24.   What are the capital costs of a reclamation plant, how will it be funded, and what impact will it have on current water costs?

Desalination

25.   What are the capital costs of a desalination plant, how would it be funded, what impact would this have on current water costs?

26.   What quantity of drinking water could be provided using desalination?

27.   How long will it take to get the funding and establish and get a desalination plant into full production?

Water Wastage

28.   What quantity of water is wasted through aged leaking pipes, unmetered connections, etc?

29.   What is being done to stop this wastage?

Fernkloof Dam

30.   Why can this water not be used to supplement other potable water sources?

31.   Could the wall be raised to increase storage capacity?

De Bos Dam:

32.   Could the wall be raised to increase storage capacity?

Palmiet River:

33.   Is it feasible to pipe water from Palmiet which has a much bigger catchment area?

PREPARED BY:

Ed Blignaut, Roy Lennox

Hermanus Ratepayers Association:  Water

0833993081

Stanford's illegal signage wrecks the villages tourism potential

Klein River estuary breaching disaster

The Klein River Estuary Forum (KREF) has perpetuated the folly of breaching the Hermanus lagoon, once again to the east of the berm, rerouting the river out of its historic course, thus isolating once again the chronic sewage pollution against the camp site (see pictures)

Ignoring anecdotal records KREF replaced them with a 'scientific' hypothesis to the contrary of the historic evidence. It has been recorded that in the early 60's the mayor of Hermanus at the time, requested that the river be breached to the East of the berm to allow for more recreational beach use for the camp site visitors. A damning inditement of human intervention, to the detriment of the environment and the health of the Hermanus population.

The westerly moving channel can still be see in the center of picture

Notice the isolation of the cess pools in front of camp site

Encouraging a build up of dangerous pathogens

It has come to light that the Blue Flag status of Grotto beach has compromised the ecology of the Klein river estuary. This has been done by lobbying for a eastern breach to prevent high levels of pollution being wash into the sea from the camp site sewerage spillage.

Klein River Estuary. Another resignation.

Klein River Estuary artificial breaching resignation. 
This time Nicholas Clark


 Dear Rob

I hereby tender my resignation from KREF.

As I represent the Hermanus Yacht Club, I will attempt to find another member of HYC to be on KREF.

Prior to the breaching subcommittee meeting Sue told me telephonically that they(?) were concerned that the mouth would breach naturally and that the position of the breaching would not be in the desired location. They were thus going to breach the mouth at the eastern side to prevent a breaching in the west at the lowest point. With this in mind I naturally went and re-read the Mouth Management Plan and have read Notice of Breach and the report you sent out yesterday.

I may be wrong but my reading of the Management Plan is that a natural breaching is the ideal option. My reading of section 2.3.7 is that there are three independent criteria to determine the position of the breaching. I must assume that they are listed in order of importance.

I notice in the Post-Breaching Report on page 4 para 3, page 6 point 4.3, page 24 point 5.5 that these three criteria have been morphed into two. This makes the justification of the location of the opening easier to support.

I was surprised to see an extract of the survey I did included in the report. I have included a full copy of it with this mail. The back ground image is confusing. The small cup shape in the east is the small water line indentation that existed amongst the dunes. The start of the dunes is to the west of that position and not to the east as this old image indicates. (So the breaching was also not near the middle of the berm). The amount of estuary survey coverage on the bulk of the dune is not nearly sufficient to be used in any decision making for opening. I did have more coverage at the eastern end which were the two obviously low points. From this amount of coverage a contour plan can be generated and low points determined. The whole berm should have this amount of coverage. I am surprised as well as this survey that was done more than a month before the opening and was used in the report. I could have been asked to come and do a better survey once the a decision was made to breach. I must assume that my opinion raised, about the position of the breaching, in the discussion with Sue prevented this. As pointed out in the report the berm is very flat and the differences in height are small. This is true for a large section of the berm. I thus find it concerning that the method used by Sue and Ed  to determine the height is so rudimentary. Technology is available that can give far more accurate results. I must assume that the lowest point is not really one of the criteria that is taken seriously. All of the measurements that were taken are worth nothing because of the throw-away sentence on page 10 at 9:00. The berm had changed overnight and we had a new position to open it. What a pity a photo and measurements of the change is not included in the report. Strangely enough no such change had happened in the month preceding that with much higher winds and seas.

I am pleased to see that flooding of house was not a reason for breaching but distressed to see that part of the motivation of the position of the breach is to save the car park. With repeated opening of the mouth in one position the main channel must move. The eastern opening was chosen in the past to enlarge the recreation area at the mouth and so that sand mining could happen. Both of these activities can not occur with a western opening.

I wish you luck with your future endeavours with KREF.

Regards

Nicholas

Klein River artificial breaching a complete failure

Local knowledge ignored by KREF the local body mandated to manage the Klein River estuary. Below is a letter from the  Kenilworth Hermanus Scout Camp who have been camping on the site for an unbroken 100 years 

 If this should consern you call Sue Mathews 0833815432 or Rob Fryer 0721855726

River flowing to recent breached mouth in distance

Campsite cess pit high and dry due to incorrect breach east of berm

Dear Noon,

As recommended by you, I am enlisting the support of the aesthetics committee in regard to the scout camp site at Die Mond. As you know, we, the Kenilworth Hermanus Scout Camp have been camping on that site for an unbroken 100 years during the months of December and January for approximately 2 weeks each year. For the first 90 of those years, the site was more or less pristine and the water in front of the site was clean and clear and about 20ft deep and connected to the main body of the Hermanus lagoon. For the last 10 years situation has been deteriorating due to continuous artificial annual breaching of the berm in an easterly position thereby causing silting which has separated the water in front of the campsite from the main lagoon by a kilometre of seasand. This has been aggravated by the sewage department spilling copious quantities of raw sewage into the water in front of the campsite. This has resulted in the resultant pond becoming a cesspit unfit for any recreational purposes. The above is despite numerous appeals to the powers that be (KREF, OCF, Cape Nature) to manage the mouth differently. I therefore urge you to put pressure on the mayor and her council to do something, preferably before December, to restore the site to its former pristine glory.

Maybe you could point out just how inefficient the recent artificial opening was for the following reasons:

1. the breaching took place when the water level was 20cm below the level of the berm which resulted in 2.5 billion litres of water    not being available for scouring.

2  the extreme eastern opening caused the main channel to do a complete U-turn before entering the sea and thereby disippating huge amounts of energy and therefore silt-carrying capacity.

3 the opening took place at a time when the tidal system was nearer the neap tides than the spring tides also causing a huge loss of potential silt carrying capacity and scouring effect.

4 At the time of the opening there was an extremely strong westerly wind blowing the water inland thereby also reducing the scouring and silt-carrying capacity.

Intelligent consideration of these 4 points would have gone a long way to correcting the untennable situation described above.

I trust that you and your committee will view this site with the status that it deserves and apply the necessary pressures.

Kind regards,

Antony van Hoogstraten (Hoogie)

Chairman of the Camp Committee

Letter sent to;

john@whale.co.za, lloydn@hermanus.co.za, Nigel.Gwynne-Evans@pgwc.gov.za, morgan_griffiths@yahoo.co.uk, krichardson@wbhs.org.za, gregsimpson@telkomsa.net, Geoff.DuToit@shands.co.za, reivey@iafrica.com

THE HERMANUS SERIES

The Hermanus series THIS IS HERMANUS

will show WHATS RIGHT (best) and WHATS WRONG (worst) about Hermanus

THIS IS HERMANUS

THIS IS NOT HERMANUS

HERMANUS SERIES Depicting the best and worst aspect of the town

THIS IS HERMANUS

THIS IS NOT HERMANUS

Fall-out over Klein River Estuary premature artificial breaching on Friday 9 September 2011

Letter of resignation from Antony van Hoogstraten

----- Original Message -----

From: Carol

To: Sue Matthews ; Rob Fryer

Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 8:30 AM

Subject: Lagoon Breaching

Dear Rob,

It is a basic tennant of Nature Conservation that you leave nature to its own devices wherever possible. You are now prematurely opening the Hermanus lagoon at least 6 weeks prior to the end of our rainy season. You seem to have ignored the spring high tides which are in 5 days time. By opening the lagoon in the centre of the berm you are reinforcing an error of at least 10 years standing which has caused the deteriorating cesspit in front of the Scout Camp site and a cutting off of that body of water from the main vlei. Between Sue and yourself you have not come up with any proposal to correct this recent deterioration. According to Sue, of yesterday this kneejerk action is not a result of public (David Abbot) pressure, but if it is, you should have come out publicly and said so.

In my opinion You and Sue, sadly, have become part of the problem and not the solution. I therefor resign from KREF and the OCF with immediate effect.

Yours faithfully,

Antony van Hoogstraten

Klein River Estuary planned artificial breach been subverted by legal threats

VIEW THE PROPERTIES CREATING THE POLLUTION IN THE ESTUARY

http://truthabouthermanus.blogspot.com/2011/09/hermaus-lagoon-is-can-of-worms.html

The breaching subcommittee of the Klein River Estuary has been subverted by threatened legal action by some water front property owners. This has led to the announcement of a artificial breach planned for the 9th September. The estuary water level of 2.7m msl.

The blog posting below illustrates the dichotomy of the set back line controversy.

In simple terms it spells coercion. The subcommittee has been coerced into silently approving a breach under threat of legal action, by the very same property owners (properties seen in the photographs below) that have built their homes below the high water line.

Follow this carefully; The present water level is 2.7m msl and it should go to 3m msl for a natural

or artificial breach. Now look at the photographs and see where the properties would stand if the level would be at 3m.

Environmental Affairs, Cape Nature and KREF are in dereliction of their mandates and duties to manage the estuary in terms of their very own rulings.

They have been blackmailed by the property owners and the estuary has been held to ransom by some 'fat cats' who think they own the place.

We will not insist that these properties be demolished and their septic tanks be filled with concrete (which could be suggested) but we will insist on the following;

We are calling for the enforcement of the set back line - 5m above the 3m msl and the instillation of CSIR certified conservancy tanks for all properties falling within this window.

We are also calling for the resignation of all the town planners involved with the approving of the plans of the buildings seen in the photographs below.

Further, there must be a moratorium on all building activities around the estuary until all these submissions have been addressed to there fullest implication.

Below is a letter from KREF anouncing and justifying a pemature artificial breach planned for the 9th September

Klein River

Estuary

FORUM

2011-09-08

Notice of Planned Artificial Breach of the Klein River Estuary

in Terms of the

Maintenance Management Plan: Artificial Breaching of the Klein River Estuary

(DEA & DP Ref No. E12/2/4/7-E2/14-CJ2014/11 dated 2011-03-25)

The breaching subcommittee of the Klein River Estuary Forum, comprising of representatives of

the Overstrand Conservation Foundation, Cape Nature and the Overstrand municipality’s

Environmental Management section, met on 2011-09-07 under the chairmanship of Rob Fryer.

The purpose of the meeting was to review the status of the Klein River Estuary relative to the

criteria and guidelines for artificial breaching set out in the Klein River Estuary Mouth Management

Plan.

The outcome of the meeting was the decision to plan the artificial breaching of the Estuary mouth

at an appropriate time between the 9th and 12th of September 2011.

The time of the breaching will depend upon weather and sea conditions. The earliest the breach

may occur is at high tide at 14:00 on Friday 9th September.

Property owners with Estuary water frontage are advised to take any necessary precautions in

anticipation of the breach. The public is warned that the breaching activities involve earthmoving

activities on Grotto Beach and that the site of the breach is dangerous due to unstable sand banks

and strong currents. People are advised to observe from a distance and not to approach the area

in which the breach is made.

The breaching subcommittee satisfied itself that the prevailing circumstances warrant performing

an artificial breach and that the decision is fully consistent with the Mouth Management Plan, for

which the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA & DP) issued

environmental authorisation. Advice was obtained from reference specialists. The decision was

unanimous.

Amongst the many factors considered prior to making the decision, the following are considered to

be the most important:

1 The water level in the estuary has been steadily rising with the winter rainfall and has reached

2.77 m above mean sea level (amsl). It is evident from the only very slight increase in level

following the most recent rain storm that the level has plateaued.

2 The minimum berm height at the estuary’s mouth is 3 m amsl. This occurs at 3 positions

along the berm. Only one of these low points occurs at the preferred breaching point.

3 The weather forecast for the next week, with minimal rainfall anticipated, indicates that it is

unlikely there will be any further rise in water level, which may even drop due to evaporation

and seepage through the berm. The rainfall required in the Klein River Catchment to raise the

estuary’s water level to the 3 m amsl berm low points is estimated to be in the region of 100

mm. It is therefore unlikely that a natural breach will occur within the August to October

window within which we are authorised to effect an artificial breach.

4 While salinity levels are not deciding criteria within the Mouth Management Plan, the salinity

has reached unprecedented low levels (10 ppt). Recent observations of sand snake eels

Page 2 of 2

Klein River

Estuary

FORUM

(Ophisurus serpens) in shallow water along the berm have provided early indications that this

may be causing stress to some species in the estuary.

5 Several illegal attempts have been made to artificially breach the estuary at positions that are

not preferred for optimal scouring of silt from the estuary and which may lead to erosion of the

Grotto Beach and its car park. The danger exists that further illegal attempts at inappropriate

positions or unfavourable sea conditions might succeed to the detriment of the estuary.

The breaching subcommittee concluded that the preferred natural breach is unlikely to occur, and

that the circumstances are such that an artificial breach should be performed to promote

ecosystem health of the Klein River Estuary and preserve its value as a nursery area for fish.

DEA & DP have been notified in accordance with the conditions contained within the environmental

authorisation.

Yours faithfully

Rob Fryer

Chairman

TEL +27 28 313 2025 FAX 086 695 0046 CELL +27 72 185 5726 E-MAIL wcc@ocf.org.za WEBSITE www.whalecoastconservation.org.za

U1 Gateway Centre, Main Rd, Hermanus PO BOX 1949 HERMANUS SOUTH AFRICA 7200

PBO 18/11/13/4541 NPO 020-717

e:\klein\breaching\kref breach notice 20110908.doc

Some of the Klein River Estuary properties falling below the set back line

All the photographs (seen below) were taken on Saturday 3 September

2008

Klein River Estuary water level was 2.77 m msl at the time.

3m msl is understood to be the maximum natural breaching height

(THE 5M SET BACK IS SAID TO BE THE NEW RESTRICTED BUILDING LINE)

Johnson property

Owner unknown

Owner unknown

McCarthy property

McCarthy property

McCarthy property

Mosaic Farm (Lodge)

THIS IS HERMANUS

THIS IS HERMANUS

THIS IS NOT HERMANUS