NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
FOR WRITTEN REPLY
QUESTION NO 1699
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 28 MAY 2010
(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 15)
1699. Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental
Affairs:
(1) (a) What is the state of the water quality in the Loskop Dam as
at the latest specified date for which information is available
and (b) what are the sources of pollution in the dam;
(2) whether cyanobacteria has been identified as a problem in the
dam; if not, what is the basis for this conclusion; if so, what
are the relevant details;
(3) whether the water leaving the dam is suitable for downstream
agriculture; if not, what is the basis for this conclusion; if so,
how was this conclusion reached;
(4) whether her department has taken any measures to improve the
water quality of the dam; if not, why not; if so, what are the
relevant details;
(5) whether any (a) notices of intention to issue directives, (b)
directives or (c) criminal charges have been issued against
upstream polluters of the dam; if not, why not; if so, what are
the relevant details? NW1965E
---00O00---
REPLY:
(1)(a) There has been a marked increase in nutrient enrichment
(phosphorus and Nitrogen compounds) since 2005. These lead to
significant eutrophication related problems within the reservoir
as previously observed (i.e. fish and crocodile deaths).
Chlorophyll a concentrations peaked during summer periods of
2004/5 and there is a significant increase since the winter of
2007. However, the mean chlorophyll a concentrations are still
within limits (i.e. below 30μg/â). The mean total phosphorus
concentration of 0.041mg/â provides a moderate potential for
eutrophication problems to arise. The mean chlorophyll a
concentration of 4.42μg/â is indicative of an oligotrophic
system.
Statistical results for water quality attributes for irrigated
agricultural and domestic uses were all within targeted range
(very good to good) with the exception of Ammonium (fair range).
For the water quality attributes analysed, other than for
Ammonium and fluoride for domestic use, it would not appear that
the water quality during the period analysed would not represent
any cause for concern. Some taste and odour problems could have
been detected when the ammonium levels were at their higher
levels. Some tooth staining can be expected at the highest
concentrations.
(1)(b) Sources of pollution affecting the dam include amongst
others; point sources such as Municipal wastewater treatment
works and non point sources such as mines, tourism facilities
and agriculture.
-2-
(2) Cyanobacteria are present in Loskop Dam but it is not currently
considered as a problem because of the levels of bacteria
present.
(3) Yes, the parameters are monitored and meet the target water
quality range for downstream agriculture being practiced around
the area in question.
Due to the pollution threats, there is a high priority within my
Department to monitor the water quality as concerns have been
raised by water users downstream. As indicated in paragraph
(1)(a) above; water quality attributes for irrigated
agricultural use were within the water quality range, which was
also the same downstream of the dam.
(4) Yes, my Department is addressing the water quality at the dam
by introducing the Blue Drop Green Drop incentives for the
municipality to comply with acceptable discharge standards.
Further, my Department has developed the following:
⢠Resource directed strategy to ensure that point sources of
pollution are addressed and include aspects such as licensing
(with specific conditions to the specific users for
compliance).
⢠Resource directed measures which include amongst others the
determination of the reserve in support of licenses,
establishment of forums and initiatives (e.g. River Health
Programme) where water users participate to influence the
management and operations of river systems.
⢠Water Quality Management Plan which set the objectives for
various elements which should be achieved by various water
use sectors.
(5)(a) Yes, Table 1 below reflects the notices issued.
Table 1: Notices issued
|Notice |Section |Date issued |
|Delmas Local Municipality|19 (Pollution prevention)|10/02/2009 |
|(LM) | | |
|Department of Public |19 (Pollution prevention)|14/04/2010 |
|Works | | |
|Doornrug |19 (Pollution prevention)|28/10/2009 |
|Emalahleni LM |19 (Pollution prevention)|08/04/2009 |
| | |13/10/2009 |
| | |19/11/2009 |
| | |13/04/2009 |
|Govan Mbeki LM |19 (Pollution prevention)|08/04/2009 |
| | |27/02/2010 |
| | |13/04/2010 |
|Kungwini LM |19 (Pollution prevention)|05/06/2009 |
|Leeuwpan Coal |19 (Pollution prevention)|09/10/2009 |
|Rietvallei Meat Marketers|19 (Pollution prevention)|30/03/2009 |
|Vuna Coal Holdings |19 (Pollution prevention)|02/08/2009 |
-3-
(5)(b) Yes, Table 2 below reflects the notices issued.
Table 2: Directives issued
|Directive issued to |Section |Date issued |
|Arnot Colliery |19 (Pollution prevention)|23/03/2006 |
| |and 20 (Emergent | |
| |incident) | |
|Arnot opencast mine |19 (Pollution prevention)|10/04/2006 |
| |and 20 (Emergent | |
| |incident) | |
|Clewer |19 (Pollution prevention)|20/04/2006 |
|Emalahleni LM |19 (Pollution prevention)|27/10/2009 |
|Kanhym Estate |19 (Pollution prevention)|16/08/2007 |
|Kriel Power Station |20 (Emergency incident) |10/12/2009 |
|Rietvallei Meat Marketers|19 (Pollution prevention)|13/05/2010 |
|Optimum Colliery |19 (Pollution prevention)|09/06/2006 |
|Woestallen Colliery |19 (Pollution prevention)|20/06/2006 |
(5)(c) Yes, criminal case have been opened with the Delmas and
Emalahleni South African
Police Services (SAPS) against MPC Chicks and Emalahleni LM
(case numbers 15/03/2009 and 858/11/2009) respectively.
---00O00---