Over the past couple of months, we have seen various reports and articles focused on water pollution within the country.
Increased attention has been placed on the dilapidated state of water infrastructure, continued lack of reliable water supply and sanitation services, as well as the worsening of the country's water pollution challenges and even, localised crises.
While the increased attention on water-related issues is both necessary and vital for informing citizens and raising awareness, it should be of paramount importance that all information disseminated to the public is accurate. Inaccurate information can lead to unintended consequences such as amplifying confusion and jeopardising public trust.
The recent ongoing dispute over the status of the City of Cape Town's Blue Flag beaches serves as a lesson to all. The differing water quality results contained in the Project Blue report and those recorded by the City's own water quality tests led to unnecessary and avoidable controversy.
The report raised various concerns among residents and visitors alike and painted a concerning picture – highlighting potential risks and even questioning the sampling protocols implemented by the City of Cape Town. It needs to be acknowledged that the released Project Blue report in its current form lacks detailed information, such as the location of sampling sites etc, and can also be contested. Additionally, the way in which both parties (City of Cape Town and relevant stakeholders) responded and engaged on different platforms could have been better.
One of the City of Cape Town's Blue Flag beaches. Picture: X
Further stressing the point, the continued escalation of water pollution, specifically in the Hennops River, downstream of the Rietvlei Dam in Gauteng, has also received increased attention due to the reported Cyanobacteria bloom occurring in the river, stretching up as far as the Sesmylspruit. Cyanobacteria, also known as "blue-green algae", are microscopic algae that can produce toxins.
Clear and accurate communication is paramount as it can pose possible severe health hazards as these toxins (if present) can bio-accumulate in crops, animals and people. The Department of Water and Sanitation is aware of this issue and has continuously discouraged full-contact water sports in most rivers within the Gauteng Province – because of increasing risks of water-related illnesses.
The most recent example of misinformation about E. coli in drinking water had to be clarified by Rand Water. The published article titled "Don't drink the water! High levels of E. coli still found in these parts of the Vaal River" implied that the potable water ie. drinking water, supplied by Rand Water's Zuikerbosch Water Treatment Plant is not safe for drinking due to containing E. coli. It is of major importance to understand the difference between raw water and potable/drinking water to ensure that correct information is communicated to the public in an informed manner.
Various experts have voiced concerns, encouraging South Africans to heed caution and to never consume untreated water directly from water sources such as dams and rivers. While it is important to avoid unnecessary alarmist and sensationalised reports related to water pollution and quality, the absence of caution can have disastrous results.
The complex nature of water-related issues, challenges and crises should be acknowledged. Water issues across the globe are not simple and straightforward for several reasons. Some of the key factors contributing to its complexity include diverse water uses serving many functions, availability impacted by climate, uneven distribution creating disparities in access and use, and quality being directly and indirectly negatively affected by various sources of pollution and contamination.
Rand Water recently had to clarify reports about E. coli in the Vaal River. Picture: Facebook
Moreover, the complexity of water challenges is also influenced by the fragmented nature of its infrastructure, governance and management, it being embedded in cultural and social practices, it being a political commodity and economic enabler and, lastly, it requiring short, medium and long-term planning. All these factors, and many more, interact with one another, making water-related challenges multifaceted and often hard to solve with a simple, one-size-fits-all approach.
Overall, the consequences of misinformation about water pollution and/or quality can ripple through multiple levels, affecting individuals, communities, ecosystems, management and governance. It is therefore crucial for its complexities to be recognised. Water-related information should be accurate and reliable. All information should be vetted to avoid discrepancies which fuels uncertainty, misunderstanding and erodes public trust. Reliable information can/will ensure public health, environmental sustainability and assist with informed governance and management.
#Conviction
10 Comments
The water cycle and catchment dynamics are far more complex than what many realise, including journalists. This is often the cause of misinterpretation and lack of context in reporting.
The writer states ‘it needs to be acknowledged that Project Blue results lack detail…’.
However, it also needs to be acknowledged that City of Cape Town reporting also ‘lacks similar detail’.
Is the writer biased against Project Blue?
Furthermore, as of December 2023, City of Cape Town abandoned official SA water quality reporting standards, which require both ecoli & enterococci sampling, and to be conducted over 5 years in order to draw water safety conclusions.
Instead City of Cape Town’s ‘Summer Dashboard’ only offers us enterococci results, and only the last 10 samples, taken over a few months.
Unsurprisingly the results have gone from being heavily ‘in the red’ pre-Dec 2023, to now looking quite ‘hunky-dory’.
Talk about misleading the public!
(I hope the author reads this.)
Hi Mark. Thank you for your comment. I am not biased towards any of the stakeholders. The manner in which the CoCT have handled the various concerns raised by residents, specifically related to sewage pollution and not acknowledging that sewage is a major issue, needs to receive attention. My research and many other completed peer-reviewed research has shown that there is reason for concern regarding sewage pollution. The DWS data, specifically coliform parameters, have ranged between acceptable to unacceptable levels for over a decade. Various residents and visitors reported that they became ill and various types of evidence related to raw sewage has consistently been provided by residents and various stakeholders. Unfortunately, miscommunication also played a role. The concerns raised and the presented results in the Project Blue report should receive attention and I recommended that an independent assessment should be done in a collaborative way. There is a clear problem and it needs attention from the CoCT and all stakeholders. The only way that we can start to address the various types of water issues with workable solutions is through collaboration with all stakeholders.
I’m glad you recommend an independent assessment. I think what really needs to happen, is that the City of Cape Town actually follows WHO’s ‘Gold Standard’ for water quality reporting, and does what New Zealand does with their SafeSwim model.
And that is to have independently-audited water results. (New Zealand has an audit committee that meets quarterly to assess the municipal reporting).
This is not expensive in the greater scheme of things, and should be instituted as quickly as possible, to restore public trust.
Hi Mark, The author does not focus on the CoCT and how they conduct sea water testing because it is not the issue under scrutiny. She wrote about the lack of scientific procedure reporting in the Project Blue report. I agree with her that the report misleads the public because it was also valudated by a person who isn’t qualified to do so. The purpose of science and scientists are to scrutinise other scientists’ research, point out shortcomings and report on it. If you are concerned about CoCT’s sampling and reporting procedures, communicate this to them and start a conversation with the municipality. That way you’ll become an active resident by holding your local government to account.
Mark, I am an independent water governance consultant and have a Honours in Chemistry. The Project Blue report is total hogwash, for various reasons. The author of this piece is absolutely correct, and nothing in this article suggest bias.
The COCT Reporting clearly states where samples are taken, and independent bodies are welcome to sample the same locations.
The authors of the Project Blue Report admitted that they didn’t sample the same locations, but in fact took samples at the sewage works (which they didn’t disclose in their report). Their report is thus pseudosciense aimed at triggering an emotional response from uninformed members of the public, i.e., people like you, and they should be ashamed.
Sorry Carin, no. Samples were NOT taken at sewage works. (although it could be said the whole of Camps Bay beach and Clifton are effectively sewage works, with the raw sewage marine outfall just over 1000m away from Camps Bay beach)
One of researchers who compiled the pilot study, Prof Petrik, is rated amoung the top 3% of Scientists worldwide. Dr Barnes is also a highly respected epidemiologist.
And you failed to address my point on how CoCT reporting completely fails to comply with SA Water Quality reporting standards, of which you seem unaware.
There’s lots more info on our Facebook group, Bay of Sewage.
Perhaps please go there to do some homework?
Mark, the following are of note:
1) The report does not meet the basic requirements of a water monitoring report, as it DID NOT give any indication of WHERE the samples were taken. There is absolutely no substance to your claim that the samples were not taken at the effluent pipeline.
2) A rating as a “top scientist” does not qualify a person to conduct “science” in areas they are clearly unqualified for. The mere fact that the authors of the report used an unqualified hack with zero chemistry qualifications to “review and sanction” their report tells you everything you need to know about how pathetic it is.
3) An epidermiologist is not qualified to interpret water chemistry data.
4) You didn’t make any valid point regarding “South African Water Quality Reporting Standards”, because no such Standard exist for the ocean. If there is such a standard, please share the SANS Code 😂
5) I have seen your Facebook group, and there is nothing there but a bunch of WhiteWhyners telling each other how much better the country was under Apartheid… 🤔 Must be the influence of your Apartheid spy, I guess.
If you want to reply, come with SCIENTIFIC FACT, thanks.
Regarding New Zeeland’s SafeSwim initiative; independent WESSA is already doing this.
https://www.wessa.org.za/blue-flag/#:~:text=The%20iconic%20Blue%20Flag%20is,contributing%20to%20sustainable%20development%20goals.
I would like to conduct a political science analysis of your Facebook content. I’m interested in how interest groups try influence public opinion and public policy. From your argument above, it appears that you stand opposed to the CoCT and to hold them to account. That is a good thing, because our Constitution demands it. In the same breath, we, as scientists must hold each other to account and whenever ‘science’ enters the political arena, we have an obligation to question its valudity and reliability and hold those to account who perports to practice science, interest groups like Bay of Sewage included.