During fieldwork I found that the water sources were not all totally undeveloped. These communities, apparently with the assistance of developmental agencies some time ago, had made some investment in the development of water sources. A number of springs had been improved in the past by agencies, who built structures with brick and concrete around the source or spring to provide protection. Other water sources were covered with stones placed around collection points in order to help provide sure footing to those accessing water or by deepening the pool from which water could be drawn. These simple improvements made access a little easier and helped with a better flow of water which facilitate water collection and ease women’s daily chores. However, the construction of concrete structures around some eyes of springs (the point at which water immerges from the ground) impaired flow. Surprisingly, none of the protected springs were found to be functioning as intended; it appears that the eye of the spring had been obstructed with water which was now seeping under and around the structures rather than through the intended pipe. The study found that the greatest investment in improving water sources has, however, not been spring protection but rainwater harvesting which is discussed further below.
Source: Department of Environment. http://www.environment.gov.za/enviro- info/prov/ec/ecrain.jpg
Rainwater harvesting (RWH) is often proposed as providing a water source, which is closely accessible to the household and, in high rainfall areas, providing a reasonable supply of water for domestic purposes. Rainwater harvesting, particularly in poor rural areas, is described as a household response to the lack of water and often undertaken without technical knowledge or external assistance (Houston and Still, 2001). Those advocating rainwater harvesting point to the simplicity in construction and maintenance, a strong sense of ownership, which improves sustainability, and the easing of the burden of water collection on women and children (Houston and Still, 2001: 24). Rainwater harvesting also has the advantage in that water quality can be easily maintained and potential infection is limited because a single water source is used by a limited number of people. In the three target villages people invested in rainwater harvesting with the use of social investment clubs known as stokvels in South Africa. Community members save money to contribute towards the purchase of a water tank. A 1000 litre water tank costs 2500 South African Rands , which, for poor households is a large amount to raise at once but with social club saving, households can afford a rainwater harvesting system.
Household investments in improved water access have been made in RWH thus providing evidence that people prefer to access water, if they can, from the very nearest source. Rainwater harvesting involves a range of investments from that of a simple water barrel to the 2.5 kilolitre green polyethylene tanks using a rotational molding process to provide the robust “Jojo”.
The study found that the use of RWH in the Eastern Cape was in a different context to that of domestic water use in rural development. The Department of Agriculture in the Eastern Cape, for instance, utilizes RWH to augment water supply to gardens as a communal water supply for agricultural purposes in the Massive Food Programme.5 This is due to the fact that RWH for domestic water use is owned by households and not managed through communal ownership and because the basic water service is defined as piped water within 200 metres of the household, it appears difficult for municipalities to include infrastructure in the roll-out of water delivery. Further difficulties were highlighted and shown to be inter-departmental responsibilities. RWH relies on well-constructed roofs and gutters and appears to straddle the responsibilities of departments of housing and water.
Whatever the precise reasons, the advantages of RWH have led to considerable household investment not being realized at a municipal level.
The level of the necessary household investment rises from the purchase of some guttering and a water barrel to provide a rudimentary level of RWH to the installation of full guttering around corrugated iron roofs leading to 2.5 kilolitre tanks. A 1 kilolitre Jojo costs in the region of R1,200 plus transport and a 2.5 kilolitre Jojo costs in the region of R2,000 plus transport cost to the place of operation. In addition there is the cost of guttering and attachment to the rainwater tank providing a cost estimate of R2,500 for the 1 kilolitre tank and R3,500 for the 2.5 kilolitre tank.
5 Interview in 2007 with Eastern Cape Department of Agriculture in study of Batho Pele principle of value for money.
A set of questions probed the use of rainwater harvesting and a fairly high proportion of the households in the communities- 73 of the 75 households indicated the adoption of some form of RWH.
However as indicated above most households cannot afford to buy water tanks hence they use water barrels as shown in the picture below. These can be bought at wholesale markets at R100 for a 200 litre barrel.
Figure 11 Rain harvesting A water barrel. Rainwater harvesting with water barrels is common.
There is a wide range of investment in rainwater harvesting. The most elementary form of rainwater harvesting involves a barrel being located under the eaves of roof top to channel rain water in to water tank or barrel. Water barrels and the more elaborate containers water tanks which can hold considerable volumes of water, potentially from 1 to 2.5 kilolitres.
Table 18 Rain water harvesting – Jojo and Barrels
Rainwater harvesting Village
JoJo 2.5 Kilolitres Cwebe Mbelu Ntilini Grand Total
No 6 7 11 24
Yes 2 7 9
No Response 17 18 7 42
Grand Total 25 25 25 75
Two households in Cwebe reported having 2.5 litres Jojo tanks and Ntilini has 7 tanks.
Table 19 Rainwater harvesting Jojo tank by village
Rainwater harvesting Village
JoJo 1 Kilometre Cwebe Mbelu Ntilini Grand Total
No 7 7 12 26
Yes 1 1 2 4
No Response 17 17 11 45
Grand Total 25 25 25 75
Table 20 and 21 shows that very few people tend to harvest water in a Jojo Tank
Table 20 Rainwater harvesting by barrel by village
Rain water harvesting Village
Barrel 200L Cwebe Mbelu Ntilini Grand Total
No 3 1 2 6
Yes 5 6 14 25
No Response 17 18 9 44
Grand Total 25 25 25 75
The table 22 shows that more households in all three villages harvest rainwater-using barrels compared to harvesting in a Jojo.
It appears that the number of barrels utilized by households in a community reflects a proportion of the investment in tanks where there are fewer tanks a greater number of barrels are utilized. The barrels appear to be something of a proxy for the more expensive rainwater tanks.
This investment in RWH is said to be made by more prosperous households, although this is not confirmed in statistical analysis. In discussion with communities it has been stated that those migrants retiring to their rural homes tended to invest in water tanks. Households with Jojo tanks also tended to have more than one method of RWH; to combine both the tanks and water barrels to maximize the possibility of water collection. These households are regarded as better-off and, during times of drought, they are approached to assist neighbours by providing drinking water.
Rainwater harvesting is certainly the greatest single investment made by some households in the three villages. The advantages are that during high rainfall water is relatively safe and readily accessible at the household itself; saving time and energy utilized in trips to the water source.