Meters

4.4 Summary

5.1.4 Meters

The municipality, as a tool to measure and monitor household water consumption and provide the FBW allocation, used meters. As stated in section 4.1.3, the majority of households (94.9%) were metered. The municipality maintained the meters and monitored household monthly consumption via municipal meter readers who documented monthly household meter readings. If understood by households, meters were a valuable tool for self-monitoring household consumption, checking volumes consumed against water bills and detecting water leakages.

Most of the households (81.8%) were not satisfied with the way meters were monitored by municipal meter readers. Their dissatisfaction was attributed to the manner in which their meters were read (by municipal meter readers) and their (the households) general lack of understanding on how meters operate. Households indicated that municipal meter readers did not read the meters frequently, readings were inaccurate or estimated

(resulting in varying water costs per month) and a general air of scepticism and poor community acceptance of meters and municipal meter readings existed. Municipal meter readers claimed that they did read the meters but they were often prevented from doing so as the household members were often away at the time of reading (hence the municipal meter readers could not be monitored or witnessed) or the meter readers were scared of household dogs and were afraid of entering the yards. Households voiced that they required basic information on how meters were operated, how the 'dials' were read and how the readings corresponded with the monthly bills to ensure that they could monitor their water usage and check that they were not being overcharged. In addition to the confusion on the operation of meters, meter readings were not consistently taken on the same day each month so municipal consolidated bills did not reflect a constant date, time duration or volume used. This compounded the difficulty of households to monitor meters and billing. Meters, connected to an efficient computer programme, could be managed effectively. However, the administrative department stated that the . current computer systems were outdated, with the implication that monitoring was difficult and current and reliable statistics were lacking.

Despite the widespread dissatisfaction of households to meters, a large percentage of households (68.8%) indicated that meters were still a good tool in service delivery:

However, when asked to provide possible meter alternatives, 85.9% of households suggested non-specified alternatives. This emphasised the perceived uselessness of meters for household monitoring in the absence of information and the necessity to find socially acceptable alternatives accompanied by usable consumer information.

5.1.5 Leakages

Most households (77.1%) had leakages, after the meter pOSItIon (this figure was consistent with the findings by the Msunduzi city engineers, 2003). See table 5.1.

Leakages were present at one or more of the following sites: at the meter, after the meter (on the pipe connecting the tap), at the tap, on the pipe connecting the toilet and in the toilet. This was a significant concern for households and was shared by the Msunduzi city engineers (2003). Leakages were not dealt with promptly and continued to drip, spurt or gush. Leakages, as indicated by households, could be attributed to

shoddy workmanship or inferior materials used by contractors, aging systems², high pipe pressure or poor maintenance and management. The inefficient or delayed fixing of leakages by households could be ascribed to: lack of personal capacity in fixing leakages or household affordability and time constraints. The inefficient or tardy fixing of leakages by municipalities could be attributed to inefficient notification systems, a lack of budgetary or financial support for maintenance projects, insufficient staff or the low prioritisation of maintenance operations on a political level. Table 5.1 depicts the number of households experiencing leakages (at the meter, after the meter (on the pipe connecting the tap), at the tap, on the pipe connecting the toilet and in the toilet) per area.

Table 5.1: Number of households experiencing leakages per study area.

Imbali (unit 1) 3 50 53 94.3%

Imbali (unit 2) 8 29 37 78.4%

Haniville 27 59 86 68.6%

Sobantu 27 45 72 62.5%

Thembalihle 5 53 58 91.4%

Total 70 236 306 77.1%

Leakages that were not dealt with promptly and continued unabated presented households with a challenging affordability problem. If households could not cover the loss, then municipalities assumed the economic burden, which through the cycle of responsibility, were transferred to households through higher tariffs thereby increasing the fmancial burden of households. The Msunduzi city engineers (2003) expressed that they were mandated by the Msunduzi municipality to fix leakages pre- and at the meter but that they were also endeavouring to assist households and would repair post-meter leakages but would charge for their services, which could be paid for through instalments (see figure 5.1). This avenue was explored, by the researcher (water department toll free number: 0800 001868, 2003); however, it was found that this service was not being implemented and that households would have to hire a private plumber if the leak fell after the meter position. Under the current system (where water

2 The approximate date of service water pipe installation is correlated with the date of the establishment ofstudy areas and is the follOWing (provided by community researchers): Sobantu [1930],Imbali (unit 1) [1950], Imbali (unit 2) [1955].Haniville[1990]and Thembalihle [1996].

demand management is not prioritised), it would be interesting to ascertain the water volumes and monies lost per day/month/year. Water losses have serious implications for the financial and environmental sustainability of low-income households, municipalities and South Africa and may push the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) to source further water supplies through expensive and unsustainable measures as big dams or alternative water catchment areas or basement transfers (National Water Resource Strategy, 2002). The National Water Resource Strategy (NWRS) is admittedly weak on water demand management and conservation management and is consistent with the (prioritisation of leakages) position taken by the Msunduzi municipality (personal communication with DWAF director of strategic planning involved in compiling the NWRS, 2003).

Municipality responsible for leakages

Household responsible for leakages

<IIIP<--->~ , E<----O->~

- - - 1 ' C <

<---"-"

r

Tap and toilet Meter position

Figure 5.1: Municipal and household leakage responsibilities (Msunduzi city engineers, 2003).

A water leakage project and water audit had been launched in Msunduzi at the time of the study. However, the specific details were still pending. Widespread water leakages had significant implications for households, municipalities and South Africa: leakages could decrease household access to the FBW utility (households pushed into higher stepped block tariffs- thus resulting in inability to access the 6kl allocation), increased affordability problems to households (paying for lost water and paying at higher tariff rates) and municipalities (in cases of non-payment or unaccounted for water, which are transferred to households through higher tariff rates) and ultimately compromised environmental sustainability of the resource.