River Operations Committee
4. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ADAPTIVE OPERATIONAL WATER RESOUCES
4.2. THE COMPONENTS OF OPERATIONAL WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
4.2.3 Data and Information
Initial OWRM Related Data and Information Needs:
The initial investigations into the data and information sources relevant to OWRM and available at the commencement of this study relied much on the outcomes of the DWA real time operations DSS for the Crocodile River system (Hallowes et al., 2007; DWA, 2010a) and the Inkomati Water Availability Assessment Study (IWAAS) (DWA, 2009) projectsAPPENDIX . These data and information sources are shown and discussed in APPENDIX I.
CROCOC derived Data and Information Needs:
The initial information and data needs shown in APPENDIX I were presented to the stakeholders at the initial CROCOC meeting and adjusted during the following nine meetings prior to the completion of the TOR. Furthermore, a workshop with the KNP was held during November 2009 to discuss their thresholds of potential concern (TPC) and associated feedbacks relating to the ecological flow and bio-physical data. All the potential and relevant information and feedbacks between the ICMA and KNP were identified and discussed at this meeting. These information needs have all been incorporated into the CROCOC TOR at the relevant timescales as shown in APPENDIX E. The TOR for the CROCOC (APPENDIX E), developed in collaboration with the CROCOC stakeholders, summarises the main information and decision needs at various temporal scales required for the operational water resources management of the Crocodile River.
A further workshop was held in June 2013 to review the data and information needs of the CROCOC stakeholders as part of the evaluation and review processes inherent in action research. The workshop involved the following steps:
1) A refresher of the existing information requirements for AOWRM captured in the CROCOC TOR.
2) A presentation of the latest status of the Water Resources Information Management Database (WRIMD) and DSS at the ICMA.
3) An opportunity for stakeholders to complete an information needs questionnaire, shown in APPENDIX J. The stakeholders were given the following guidelines for completing the questionnaire and for the facilitated discussions thereafter:
a) Split information for planning vs. information for real time operations.
b) Timescales for information. I.e. What information do you require at what timescales? The suggested categories are annual. quarterly, monthly, weekly, daily.
c) Types of decisions you would like to be involved in.
d) How you would best like to see or access this information. Options include internet website, emails, SMS, at Operations Committees, smartphone apps etc.
e) Types of alerts or alarms you would like to see.
f) Institutions and responsibilities for decisions and information. E.g. Responsibilities of ICMA vs. Irrigation Boards.
g) How can the ICMA audit its performance in meeting your needs.
4) A facilitated consensus based discussion to finalise a list of current data and information needs.
This facilitated discussion obtained inputs from all stakeholders by asking each participant to write down their top three needs. Each participant was then asked to indicate their top priority and this process continued until all needs were obtained. The intention of this process was to ensure that the subjective understanding of any one actor was sufficiently transcended. Stakeholders were then asked to indicate if they felt that any needs indicated were not relevant. Lastly, discussion was allowed to obtain a final list of data and information needs as shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Outcomes of the stakeholder data and information needs workshop held in June 2013.
Main Topic Sub-Topic Time
Intervals Manner of publicizing General. Up to date contact details of all
Stakeholders.
Stakeholders like the idea of smartphone apps.
Stakeholders like the idea of the spatial disaggregation of data through live maps.
Quarterly. Website.
Website.
River Flow. Dam levels and releases.
Restriction levels.
Flow levels and rates.
History VS current and forecast.
Flood prediction and warning.
Monthly.
Daily.
Real time.
Website.
Ability to download data.
Rainfall. Past, current and forecast.
Comparison to historic statistics.
Long term weather forecasts.
Real time.
Daily.
Monthly.
Quarterly.
Website.
Download data.
CROCOC.
Environmental Water Requirements.
Better alarms required.
History VS current and forecast.
Daily.
Weekly.
SMS best for urgent issues.
Monthly. Otherwise email and website.
Download data.
Economic Benefit of Supply.
Annual. Main ICMA
website.
Impacts of
restrictions.
Annual. Main ICMA
website.
Water Use. Demand VS population.
Water conservation and demand management.
Patterns (history, current and forecast).
Actual use VS allocation/request.
Also include ET data for land uses including natural vegetation.
New developments and closures of developments.
Improved crop factors that respond to current climate (eg. Closer to real time than the monthly static crop factors used currently).
Annual.
Annual.
Annual.
Monthly.
Monthly.
Monthly.
Daily.
Website.
Graphs.
Website.
Graphs.
Website.
Website, CROCOC.
Water Balance. Water availability.
Historic and future.
Long term yield curve.
Annual. Graphs.
CROCOC.
Website.
Dams. Historic, current and forecast.
Dam levels vs stochastic probabilistic trajectories.
Dam levels vs restriction levels.
Scenarios for different restrictions.
Scenarios for different climates.
Monthly. CROCOC.
Water Quality Map of incidents for discussion.
Turbidity, Ec, pH in real time).
Notification of spillages.
NB: Temperature.
Modelled results of expected impacts of spillages / authorisation applications.
Daily (real time) for parameters indicated.
quarterly for rest.
Sms and email in emergency.
Otherwise email
& Website.
Alien Vegetation. Involve working for water. Annual. Main ICMA website.
Unified Water Measuring System to easily incorporate output into website (Compatibility).
Daily.
Monthly summarised data.
Website.
The outcomes of this workshop, shown in Table 5, have not yet been assessed, nor incorporated into the AOWRMF and TOR of the CROCOC. They will form the basis of future amendments and additions to the information provision around AOWRM, coordinated through the CROCOC in an adaptive context.
An important outcome of this review was the stakeholders’ strong indication of the need to incorporate water quality monitoring information into the CROCOC. This is in the process of being implemented. Currently, the monthly water quality monitoring results for pH, electrical conductivity and e.Coli are summarised and presented at the CROCOC meetings. Figure 17 indicates the graph for pH. The suitability of the three water quality parameters and their manner of presentation to the CROCOC as indicators of the water quality does not from part of the scope of this thesis. They are merely the three parameters deemed to currently best represent the state of the water quality by the resource protection and waste division of the ICMA (i.e. the relevant manager’s knowledge and experience).
Figure 17: Initial water quality monitoring information for pH presented to CROCOC following the information needs workshop outcomes.
The addition of real time monitoring of key water quality parameters at priority water flow gauging sites may be investigated in future.
Discussion on the Data and Information Developed During the Implementation of the AOWRMF:
The previous section documented the data and information needed for OWRM in the Crocodile River stemming from previous projects, discourse at the CROCOC meetings and a stakeholder information
6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00
pH