KOKSTAD

WATER RESOURCES AND YIELD

ASSESSMENT
March 2020
REVISION 00

Prepared by:
JG AFRIKA (PTY) LTD
Pietermaritzburg
6 Pin Oak Avenue
3201
Tel: 033 343 6700
Email: johnsons@jgafrika.com
Project Director: Simon Johnson
 Form 4.3.1
VERIFICATION PAGE
Rev 13

TITLE:
Kokstad – Water Resources and Yield Assessment
JGA REF. NO. DATE: REPORT STATUS
5289 30/02/2020 Draft
CARRIED OUT BY: COMMISSIONED BY:
JG Afrika (Pty) Ltd Zimile Consulting Engineers
Pietermaritzburg Johannesburg

PO Box 794 First Floor, Suit F

Hilton 41 Kyalami Boulevard, Business Park
3245 Midrand
1685
Tel.: +27 33 343 6700 Tel: +27 11 466 8813
Email: mokonotoo@jgafrika.com Email: info@zimileeng.co.za
AUTHOR CLIENT CONTACT PERSON
Ofentse Mokonoto Thabile Ndlovu
SYNOPSIS
Water resources assessment to determine the supply potential of the Kempdale and Crystal
Springs Dams as well as to identify potential sources to augment water supply to the Kokstad
Water Supply Scheme.
KEY WORDS:
Assurance of supply, environmental water requirement, sustainable yield, water resources,
hydrology.
© COPYRIGHT: JG Afrika (Pty) Ltd.
QUALITY VERIFICATION
This report has been prepared under the controls established by a quality management system
that meets the requirements of ISO9001: 2008 which has been independently certified by
DEKRA Certification under certificate number 90906882

Verification Capacity Name Signature Date

Ofentse Mokonoto
By Author Hydrologist
Jedine Govender

Checked by: Senior Hydrologist Phillip Hull

Authorised by: Technical Director Simon Johnson

Filename: W:\Hydro\JGA\5289 - Kokstad water resources assessment (PH)\04 Documents and Reports\J&G Reports
 KOKSTAD
WATER RESOURCES AND YIELD ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1
SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................2
2.1 Site Locality.............................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Rainfall Data ............................................................................................................ 2
2.3 Land Cover Characteristics ...................................................................................... 2
HYDROLOGICAL INVESTIGATION .................................................................................8
3.1 Methodology and Model Selection ......................................................................... 8
ACRU Model..................................................................................................................8
WRSM/Pitman ............................................................................................................12
3.2 Environmental Water Requirements .................................................................... 17
3.3 Simulation Results ................................................................................................. 18
3.3.1 Environmental Water Requirements .........................................................................18
3.3.2 Hydrological Analysis: ACRU .......................................................................................19
3.3.3 Validation of Simulated Streamflows: ACRU ..............................................................23
YIELD ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS ......................................................... 24
4.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 24
4.2 Results ................................................................................................................... 26
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................. 28
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 30
ANNEXURE A – WRSM2000/PITMAN NETWORK DIAGRAMS ...................................... 31
ANNEXURE B – GRAPHS FOR NATURALISED STREAMFLOW AGAINST THE EWR ........... 33
ANNEXURE C – WRYM NETWORK DIAGRAMS ............................................................ 38
ANNEXURE D – YIELD-RELIABILITY CURVES FOR THE WRYM SCENARIOS .................... 41

Page i
TABLES
Table 2-1 Location of Existing and Potential Abstraction Points ............................................ 2
Table 3-1 Acocks Land Cover of the Catchments of Interest ................................................ 10
Table 3-2 Present-Day Land Cover of the Catchments of Interest ....................................... 10
Table 3-3 Summary of Key Catchment Characteristics ......................................................... 12
Table 3-4 Quaternary Catchment Precipitation (WR2012) ................................................... 13
Table 3-5 Quaternary Catchment Evaporation (WR2012) .................................................... 13
Table 3-6 S-pan-to-Catchment Evapo-Transpiration Conversion Factors (1) ......................... 14
Table 3-7 Water Users for the Mzimtlava River Catchments ................................................ 14
Table 3-8 Summary of the Catchment Calibration Parameters at the Streamflow
Gauge Sites ............................................................................................................................... 15
Table 3-9 Statistical Comparison between Observed and Simulated Streamflows of
the Contributing Catchment Gauge for the Mzimtlava River .................................................. 16
Table 3-10 Comparison of the Simulated Natural and Present-Day Streamflow
Results at the Study Sites (1920 - 2009) ................................................................................... 17
Table 3-11 The Naturalised Streamflow and EWR Results in million m3 ............................. 19
Table 3-12 Simulated Streamflow (million m3) Under Present-Day Land Cover
Conditions in the Crystal Springs Dam Catchment .................................................................. 20
Table 3-13 Simulated Streamflow (million m3) Under Present-Day Land Cover
Conditions in the Droewig Catchment ..................................................................................... 21
Table 3-14 Simulated Streamflow (million m3) Under Present-Day Land Cover
Conditions in the Mzimtlava Tributary Catchment .................................................................. 22
Table 3-15 Streamflow Validation for the Proposed Abstractions in the Study
Catchments................................................................................................................... 23
Table 4-1 Yield Analysis Results for Crystal Springs Dam and the Two Tributaries of
the Mzimtlava River ................................................................................................................. 26
Table 4-2 Yield Modelling Results Summary for the Kempdale Dam and the Four
Dam Options............................................................................................................................. 27

FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Locality Plan of the Study Catchments ................................................................. 4
Figure 3-1 Comparison of the Simulated and Observed Streamflow at Gauge
T3H004 ......................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 7-1 WRSM2000/PITMAN Network Diagram for Tertiary Catchment T32D ............. 32
Figure 8-1 Naturalised Streamflow (black line) and Class C EWR (red line) for
Abstractions on the Crystal Springs Dam ................................................................................. 34
Figure 8-2 Naturalised Streamflow (black line) and Class C EWR (blue line) for
Abstractions from the Droewig Catchment Outlet .................................................................. 35
Figure 8-3 Naturalised Streamflow (black line) and Class D EWR (blue line) for
Abstractions from the Mzimtlava Tributary Catchment Outlet ............................................... 36

Page ii
Figure 8-4 Naturalised Streamflow (black line) and Class D EWR (blue line) for
Abstractions from the Kempdale Dam ............................................................... 37
Figure 9-1 Network diagram Used in the WRYM Setup for Kempdale Dam, Dam 7
and Dam 7.1 ....................................................................................................... 39
Figure 9-2 Network diagram Used in the WRYM Setup for Dam 4 and Dam 3 .................. 40
Figure 10-1 Yield-Reliability curve for Kempdale Dam at Dam Wall Level 1281
mASML ............................................................................................................. 42
Figure 10-2 Yield-Reliability curve for Kempdale Dam at Dam Wall Level 1279
mASML ............................................................................................................. 43
Figure 10-3 Yield-Reliability curve for Dam 7 at Dam Wall Level 1362 mASML ................ 44
Figure 10-4 Yield-Reliability curve for Dam 7 at Dam Wall Level 1361 mASML ................ 45
Figure 10-5 Yield-Reliability curve for Dam 7.1 at Dam Wall Level 1362 mASML ............. 46
Figure 10-6 Yield-Reliability curve for Dam 7.1 at Dam Wall Level 1361 mASML ............. 47
Figure 10-7 Yield-Reliability curve for Dam 4 at Dam Wall Level 1246 mASML ................ 48
Figure 10-8 Yield-Reliability curve for Dam 4 at Dam Wall Level 1246 mASML ................ 49
Figure 10-9 Yield-Reliability curve for Dam 3 at Dam Wall Level 1215 mASML ................ 50
Figure 10-10 Yield-Reliability curve for Dam 3 at Dam Wall Level 1214 mASML ................ 51

PLATES
Plate 2-1 Example of Grasslands in the Catchments of Interest ............................................ 6
Plate 2-2 Depiction of the Crystal Springs Dam ...................................................................... 6
Plate 2-3 Depiction of the Kempdale Dam ............................................................................. 7
Plate 2-4 Depiction of the Quarry Adjacent to the Kempdale Dam ....................................... 7

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACRU Agricultural Catchment Research Unit
DWS Department of Water and Sanitation
MAE Mean Annual Evaporation
MAP Mean Annual Precipitation
MAR Mean Annual Runoff
WARMS Water Authorisation and Registration Management System
WR2012 Water Resources of South Africa Study (2012)
WRYM Water Resources Yield Model

Page iii
 INTRODUCTION
Zimile Consulting Engineers appointed JG Afrika (Pty) Ltd (JG Afrika) to undertake the specialist
analyses required to determine the water resource potential of several points of abstraction to
augment water supply to the Kokstad Water Supply Scheme (KWSS). The study area is located near
Kokstad within the Harry Gwala District Municipality. It is understood that water supply to the KWSS
has become strained. Hence the need for this water resources and yield assessment specialist study.

The sustainable yield was assessed based on an analysis of historical flows (simulated using the ACRU
Model and the WRSM/Pitman). The Client did not provide JG Afrika with a target draft (volume of
water required at as set time interval) for the potential abstraction points. A report by Hatch Goba
(2016) indicated that the registered water use (sourced from Crystal Springs Dam and Mzimtlava
River) for Kokstad town is 9.5 Mℓ/day. Other studies such as that by AHL Water (2020) have shown
that the actual water demand in Kokstad averages at 10.3 Mℓ/day and peaks around 16.4 Mℓ/day
(which is more than the inflow into the dams supplying Kokstad contributing in the ongoing water
shortages). The water demands in Kokstad are projected to increase between 23.1 Mℓ/day and 23.55
Mℓ/day by 2030 (DWA, 2009, Hatch Goba, 2016). Based on report by Hatch Goba (2016), the water
demand deficit for 2030 is 14.05 Mℓ/day. Therefore, the aim of the study is to determine the supply
potential of the Kempdale and Crystal Springs Dams as well as to identify potential sources to augment
water supply to the KWSS to meet water demands by 2030. Options of increasing the Kempdale Dam
wall is assessed as well.

The potential yield was determined based on the volume of water that can be supplied, for 98% of the
days simulated. This is in line with the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) requirements for
potable water supply schemes. At this supply assurance, the water supply scheme in question has a
daily failure risk interval of 2%. This implies that there is a 2% probability of the full demand not being
met on any given day.

The available yield at the 98% supply assurance was calculated whilst allowing for the downstream
Environmental Water Requirement (EWR), defined as the minimum portion of the total flows that are
required to sustain a healthy ecosystem downstream of the abstraction points, as per DWS
requirements. In line with this, the available yield was calculated while providing for a Class C and D
EWR. In addition, all registered lawful water users upstream of the abstraction points were
considered. The results of the assessment are summarised in this report. A short description of the
study area, analysis methodology and data used are also presented.

Page 1
 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site Locality
As presented in Figure 2-1, there are two existing and six potential abstraction points assessed in this
study. The existing abstractions are at the Crystal Springs and Kempdale Dams (water is released from
Kempdale dam to the abstraction weir where water is pumped to the Kokstad WTW), and the potential
abstractions are at an unnamed dam in the Droewig River catchment, the Mzimtlava River Tributary
and four possible dam locations along the Mzimtlava River. The sites are all close to the town of
Kokstad in the Harry Gwala District Municipality of KwaZulu-Natal province. From a hydrological
perspective, the project areas are in Quaternary Catchment T32C and T32D in the Mzimvubu to
Keiskama Water Management Area.

Table 2-1 Location of Existing and Potential Abstraction Points

Catchment Name Coordinates
*Crystal Springs Dam 29°23’56” E; 30°30’17” S
Droewig River 29°22’53” E; 30°33’27” S
Mzimtlava Tributary 29°26’36” E; 30°33’32” S
*Kempdale Dam 29°27'24"E 30°32'6"S
Dam position 7 (Dam 7) 29°28'50"E 30°27'41"S
Dam position 7.1 (Dam 7.1) 29°28'50"E 30°27'49"S
Dam position 4 (Dam 4) 29°23'59"E 30°33'13"S
Dam position 3 (Dam 3) 29°22'19"E 30°33'35"S
*Existing abstraction

2.2 Rainfall Data

Figure 2-2 depicts the locations of the selected driver rainfall station (Kokstad AGR RES STN – 0180721
A) from which rainfall data was sourced. The temperature data (used for the estimation of evaporative
losses) was sourced from weather station 0180721 A. The Kokstad AGR RES station was used to
represent historical rainfall within the Crystal Springs Dam, Droewig and Mzimtlava Tributary
catchments. The rainfall station is located approximately 4.19 km, 11.18 km and 12.88 km southeast
from the Crystal Springs Dam, Droewig and Mzimtlava Tributary catchments, respectively. The Mean
Annual Precipitation (MAP) for the selected rainfall station 0180721 A is 800 mm. The use of this
rainfall station for the hydrological assessment is discussed further in Section 3.1.1.

2.3 Land Cover Characteristics

The predominate land cover in the all the study catchments consist of grasslands followed by
commercial agriculture (see Figure 2-3). This was based on notes taken during the site assessment
(Plate 2-1 to Plate 2-4) digitised landuse areas using Google Earth imagery and information available

Page 2
through the South African National Biodiversity Institute National Land Cover database (SANL 2013 -
2014).

Page 3
Figure 2-1 Locality Plan of the Study Catchments

Page 4
Figure 2-3 Land Cover of the Study Catchments (SANL 2013 - 2014)

Page 5
Plate 2-1 Example of Grasslands in the Catchments of Interest

Plate 2-2 Depiction of the Crystal Springs Dam

Page 6
Plate 2-3 Depiction of the Kempdale Dam

Plate 2-4 Depiction of the Quarry Adjacent to the Kempdale Dam

Page 7
 HYDROLOGICAL INVESTIGATION
The following sub-sections outline the study methodology, the dataset analysis and their applications
in the hydrological analysis.

3.1 Methodology and Model Selection

The hydrological simulations were undertaken using the ACRU (Agricultural Catchment Research Unit)
Agrohydrological Model (Schulze, 1995; Schulze and Smithers, 2004 and updates) and the Water
Resources Simulation Model 2000/Pitman Model (WRSM/Pitman). The ACRU model was applied in
three of the study catchments, and the WRSM/Pitman was used for the larger Kempdale Dam
catchment and the four dam options along the Mzimtlava River. Model selection was based on
catchment size. The ACRU model is best suited to simulating catchment sizes up to 50 km2, therefore,
catchments are generally broken down into smaller hydrological response units (see subsection
3.1.1.1). The WRSM/Pitman is generally suitable for large catchments with streamflow data, that can
be used for calibration purposes.

ACRU Model
This model has been, and is currently being, used extensively in Integrated Water Resources
Management (IWRM) in southern Africa. The major advantage of the ACRU Model is that it has been
widely verified in South Africa. It also has a high level of process representation with physically based
input parameters/variables. Hence, it may be applied confidently in simulations involving “what-if”
scenarios (Schulze et al., 2009), as is the case in this study. In addition to this, streamflow simulations
are given at a daily time-step. This is important when assessing assurance of supply. The reason for
this is that on certain days within a month there may not be sufficient streamflow to achieve the
required abstraction amount, while a single large streamflow event during that month could
significantly increase the monthly total. Therefore, if a monthly time-step model was used it could
incorrectly suggest that the required supply volume was available at the required (daily) time-step of
the abstraction.

The ACRU Model is based on the following attributes (Schulze and Smithers, 1995):
• It is a daily time-step, conceptual-physical model;
• It has variables (rather than optimised parameters values) estimated from physically based
characteristics of the catchment;
• The model revolves around a daily multi-layer soil water budgeting; and
• It is a multi-purpose model which integrates the various water budgeting and runoff
production components of the terrestrial hydrological system.

Page 8
3.1.1.1 Simulations
As part of the assessment, two hydrological simulations were undertaken based on land cover types,
as described below:
• Natural streamflow simulation. The objective of the first simulation was to model streamflow
assuming indigenous catchment land cover conditions (i.e. before any alterations were made
to the catchment through anthropogenic activities) using Acocks (1988) Veld-Types (see Table
3-1). The simulated streamflow values were used to determine the Environmental Water
Requirements (EWR) of the riverine system downstream of the proposed abstraction point.
• Present-day streamflow simulation. The second simulation was undertaken to simulate
streamflow under present-day catchment land cover conditions. The results of this analysis
are used to undertake the yield analysis. The yield analysis was undertaken based on
simulated present-day flows, using a simple water balance (similar to that which is applied in
models such as the Water Resources Yield Model).
• . Land cover for the present day is more diversified and hence the catchment was sub-divided.
A summary of the land cover characteristics for the ACRU simulations, based on present-day
conditions is presented in Table 3-2. The ACRU Crop Numbers (required for the rainfall-runoff
modelling) corresponding to the land cover of the study catchment are also listed in Table 3-
2.

For the purposes of populating the hydrological model and undertaking the simulations, the soil
texture of the Crystal Springs, Droewig and Mzimtlava Tributary catchments were classified as sandy
clay loam. Based on notes taken during the site assessment, as well as information gathered from
various soils information databases (i.e. Visual SCS-SA) soil depths in these catchments areas are
understood to be moderately shallow (as described in the ACRU Model - Schulze et al., 1997).

3.1.1.2 ACRU Model Inputs

The ACRU Model is linked to the Southern African National Quinary and Quaternary Catchments
Databases (Schulze et al., 2009). These databases provide extensive default input for the model. These
include temperature-based reference evaporation and soils attributes. Additional input regarding
present land cover was sourced from the NLC (2014). Further land cover verification was undertaken
through an assessment of digital imagery to the catchment area.

For the naturalised streamflow simulation, the Crystal Springs Dam, Droewig and Mzimtlava Tributary
catchments were modelled by dividing each catchment into three sub-catchments based on the
Quinary Catchments database (Schulze et al., 2009). The sub-catchments were further sub-divided

Page 9
into homogenous hydrological response units (HRUs) based on the distribution of the Acocks (1988)
land cover classification and the soil characteristics, which were assumed to be the natural conditions
in this study. The dominant Acocks Veldt Types in the Crystal, Droewig and Mzimtlava Tributary
catchments were Highland and Dohne Sourveld and Southern Tall Grassland.

Table 3-1 Acocks Land Cover of the Catchments of Interest

Quinary Area
Catchment Name Acocks Veld Type
Catchment (km2)

Crystal Springs Dam 4348, 4349, 4350 Highland Sourveld and Dohne 14.61
Highland Sourveld and Dohne 190.51
Droewig 5797, 5798, 5800
Southern Tall Grassland 5.34
Highland Sourveld and Dohne 86.74
Mzimtlava Tributary 5793, 5795, 5796
Highland Sourveld and Dohne to Cymbopogon Themeda Transition 20.58

The second simulation was based on present land cover conditions and was used to determine the
present-day streamflow at the abstraction sites. Due to further heterogeneity in land cover types
under present-day land cover conditions, the contributing catchments were sub-divided into
homogenous sub-catchment units, as presented in Table 3-2. Digitised present-day land cover types
are based on the South African National Landcover Database (NLC) (2013 - 2014). A summary of the
areas and land cover types used for the present-day simulations is provided in Table 3-2. The ACRU
Crop Numbers (required for the rainfall-runoff modelling) corresponding to the land cover of the study
catchment are also listed in Tables 3-2 below.

Table 3-2 Present-Day Land Cover of the Catchments of Interest

ACRU Landcover Land Use

Catchment Name Quinary Land Use
Number Area (km2)
5030101 Thicket 0.211
Quinary 1 5181001 Commercial Agriculture 0.049
2030306 Highland and Dohne Sourveld 3.708
5030101 Thicket 0.307
5181001 Commercial Agric 0.345
Quinary 2
Crystal Springs Dam 2030306 Highland and Dohne Sourveld 6.556
5100102 Wetland 0.594
5030101 Thicket 0.039
5181001 Commercial Agric 0.575
Quinary 3 5310101 Mines 0.004
2030306 Highland and Dohne Sourveld 1.759
5100102 Wetland 0.463
Total Area (km2) 14.61
5030101 Thicket 3.166
5181001 Commercial Agric 1.681
Droewig Quinary 1
2030306 Highland and Dohne Sourveld 42.849
5100102 Wetland 0.438

Page 10
 ACRU Landcover Land Use
Catchment Name Quinary Land Use
Number Area (km2)
5030101 Thicket 8.223
5181001 Commercial Agric 33.203
Quinary 2
2030306 Highland and Dohne Sourveld 59.704
5100102 Wetland 3.022
5030101 Thicket 1.944
5181001 Commercial Agric 21.183
5310101 Mines 0.010
Quinary 3
2030322 The Southern Tall Grassveld 2.074
2030306 Highland and Dohne Sourveld 14.841
5100102 Wetland 3.510
Total Area (km2) 195.85
2030306 Highland and Dohne Sourveld 13.39
Quinary 1
5030101 Thicket 0.71
2030306 Highland and Dohne Sourveld 32.69
5030101 Thicket 1.59
Quinary 2 5283052 Urban / Built-Up (Rural Cluster) 1.06
5100102 Wetlands 1.07
Mzimtlava Tributary 5230101 Subsistence Agriculture 6.07
2030306 Highland and Dohne Sourveld 18.08
Highland Sourveld to Cymbopogon-
2030315 9.85
Themeda Transition
Quinary 3
5030101 Thicket 1.38
5100102 Wetlands 3.06
5230101 Subsistence Agriculture 18.37
Total Area (km2) 107.32

3.1.1.3 ACRU Rainfall Inputs

The Daily Rainfall Utility programme (Kunz, 2004) was used to assess rainfall stations in the vicinity of
the catchments of interest. Based on this assessment, the rainfall station 0180721 A was selected as
the driver rainfall station for the water resources assessment. The selection of this rainfall station was
based on:
• The location of the gauges relative to the catchment;
• The gauges data reliability;
• The similarity of the gauge MAP (mm) to the WR2012 quaternary MAP (mm); and
• The record length.

Due to limited climate data (mainly temperature), hydrological simulations are limited to the period
from 1950 to 1999 (the period for which there is temperature data available). Rainfall data
corresponding to this period was therefore extracted from the rainfall station record.

Page 11
Table 3-3 Summary of Key Catchment Characteristics
Rainfall Rainfall Station
Catchment Name Catchment Area (km2) Gauge MAP1 (mm) MAE2 (mm)
Station Name
Crystal Springs Dam 14.61 0180721 A 1200
Kokstad AGR RES
800
Droewig 195.85 0180721 A STN 1250
Mzimtlava Tributary 107.32 0180721 A 1200
Note: 1. Mean Annual Precipitation for the period 1950 to 1999
2. Mean Annual Evaporation (WR2012)

3.1.1.4 Assessment of Licenced Water Users

An analysis of the licensed water abstractions for the upstream contributing catchments were
undertaken using the 2016 DWS Water Authorisation and Registration Management System (WARMS)
database. The WARMS database did not indicate any registered water users in the catchments.

WRSM/Pitman
Streamflow simulations for Kempdale Dam, Dam 7, Dam 7.1, Dam 4 and Dam 3 were undertaken using
the WRSM/Pitman Model. The contributing quaternary catchments upstream of the study catchments
are in tertiary catchment T32. The model selection for streamflow simulations was based on the size
of the catchment areas contributing to all the five dam sites. The WRSM/Pitman Model is ideally suited
to large catchments with long and reliable gauged streamflow data. This section presents the methods
used to undertake the yield analysis. The following steps were completed to determine the available
yields from the Kempdale Dam:
1. Initially, hydro-meteorological data for the respective catchments were gathered, i.e. rainfall,
evaporation and observed streamflow data (based on the WR2012 database).
2. Thereafter, these datasets were used to undertake the rainfall-runoff modelling and the
simulation of natural and present-day flows (WRSM/Pitman Model).
3. Based on the simulated natural flows, the EWR downstream of the abstraction points was
determined.
4. Finally, the yield analysis was undertaken using the Water Resources Yield Model.

The following sections present more information relating to the above-mentioned steps. A network
diagram depicting the WRMS2000/Pitman Model setup for the Mzimtlava River system is presented
in Annexure A in Figures 7-1 to 7-2.

3.1.2.1 Catchment Rainfall Analysis

Datasets representing the monthly rainfall over each quaternary catchment area were obtained from
the WR2012 study for later application in the rainfall-runoff modelling process. This was done for the
quaternary catchments relevant to this study. Mean Monthly Precipitation (MMP) and Mean Annual

Page 12
Precipitation (MAP) for the quaternary catchments upstream of the abstraction sites are presented in
Table 3-5 (in millimetres). The wet season occurs during the months from October to March. A list of
the Quaternary Catchment Rainfall Zones as identified in the Water Resources of South Africa 1990
(WR90) study (still used in the WR2012 study) are also provided in Table 3-5.

Table 3-4 Quaternary Catchment Precipitation (WR2012)

Rainfall
QUAT Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep MAP
Zone
T32A 72 101 118 128 117 107 46 22 16 15 21 39 802 T5C
T32B 73 102 119 130 119 108 46 22 16 15 22 39 812 T5C
T32C 70 98 115 125 114 104 45 21 16 14 21 38 779 T5C
T32D 71 99 116 126 115 105 45 22 16 14 21 38 787 T5C

3.1.2.2 Catchment Evaporation Analysis

Rainfall and streamflow data are generally modelled as monthly time-series to incorporate the
variability of the data on a month-to-month basis. Evaporation is known to not vary significantly from
one year to the next (i.e. evaporation in one October-month, for example, is similar to evaporation in
the next October-month). Therefore, it is generally considered to be acceptable to model evaporation
data simply by applying 12 average monthly evaporation values over the standard hydrological year
(October to September) for an area of interest. A summary of the Mean Monthly Evaporation (MME)
and Mean Annual Evaporation (MAE) values (in millimetres) for the quaternary catchments upstream
of the proposed abstraction sites is provided in Table 3-6. The evaporation values are based on the
Symon’s pan (S-pan) standard. Tertiary catchment T32 falls within evaporation zone 29A (WR2012
study).

Table 3-5 Quaternary Catchment Evaporation (WR2012)

QUAT Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep MAE
T32A 134 145 156 150 124 114 83 66 56 63 90 113 1 294
T32B 129 134 140 145 119 110 80 63 53 60 87 109 1 229
T32C 123 134 144 139 114 105 77 61 51 58 83 104 1 193
T32D 129 140 150 145 119 110 80 63 53 60 87 109 1245

Catchment evapo-transpiration is calculated in WRSM as part of the rainfall-runoff simulation process

by applying 12 monthly S-pan-to-catchment evapo-transpiration conversion factors. These are
presented in Table 3-7.

Page 13
Table 3-6 S-pan-to-Catchment Evapo-Transpiration Conversion Factors (1)
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8
Note: (1) From WRC (1994).

3.1.2.3 Rainfall-Runoff Modelling

The rainfall-runoff model configuration, as depicted in Annexure A, is populated with climatic data
(see Subsections 3.1.2.1 and 3.1.2.2) and land use data. The information used to populate these
aspects of the model configuration, where applicable, are described in the following section, after
which the model calibration is presented.

Simulated Land Use and Water Use Characteristics

The influence of anthropogenic (man-made) activities affecting water availability in the contributing
quaternary catchments was accounted for in the streamflow simulations. This is achieved through
accounting for licensed water abstractions (if available) and water uses upstream of the proposed
abstraction points. The 2016 WARMS database and the registered water use information included in
the WR2012 study was used for this purpose.

Water users considered for this study were abstractions (i.e. irrigations) and afforestation. All the
water users were accounted for in the present-day simulations within the WRSM/Pitman Model. A
summary of the volumes in each of the relevant quaternary catchments upstream of the study sites is
presented in Table 3-7.

Table 3-7 Water Users for the Mzimtlava River Catchments

Catchment Anthropogenic Activity Registered Volume (million m 3 per annum)

T32A Irrigation 0.91
T32B Irrigation 0.79
T32C Irrigation 0.99
T32D Irrigation 0.47
T32A Afforestation 0.02
T32C Afforestation 0.09

Calibration of the WRSM Model

Streamflow simulations were undertaken for the Mzimtlava Rivers at the proposed points of
abstraction. Streamflow simulations within the WRSM/Pitman Model are determined through a
number of physical catchment parameters. These parameters differ from catchment to catchment
and are determined through:

Page 14
 • A process referred to as “calibration”. This involves the iterative adjustment of parameter
values to achieve simulated streamflows that mimic, as closely as possible, observed
streamflows;
• Regionalised catchment studies, such as the WR2012, and
• Estimates of parameters based on the physical characteristics of a catchment, such as the
climate, soil, vegetation and topography.

Gauged streamflow data provides the primary means of calibrating the catchment characteristics that
determine streamflow at a particular point of interest. The model calibration in this study was based
on the streamflow records of the gauge T3H004. The gauge provided the necessary information
required for the estimation of the catchment parameters that allow simulated streamflow runoff to
closely mimic actual gauged streamflows within the study catchment. Based on the calibrations,
streamflow at un-gauged catchments were simulated using the WRSM/Pitman Model. The calibration
parameters of the catchments upstream of the above-mentioned gauge are presented in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8 Summary of the Catchment Calibration Parameters at the Streamflow Gauge Sites
Acronym Description Units T3H004
Power in the soil moisture / subsurface flow
POW - 3.00
equation
ST Soil moisture capacity mm 125.00
FT Subsurface flow at full soil moisture capacity mm/month 15.00
GW Maximum groundwater flow mm/month 0.00
ZMIN Minimum catchment absorption rate mm/month 999.00
ZMAX Maximum catchment absorption rate mm/month 999.00
PI Interception storage mm 1.50
TL Lag of flow, excluding groundwater months 0.25
GL Lag of groundwater flow months 0.00
Coefficient on the evaporation / soil moisture
R - 0.50
equation

The statistical results from the calibrations are presented in Table 3-9. This table shows a comparison
of the simulated streamflow results at the outlets of the streamflow gauge catchments against their
respective observed data sets. The results indicate that the simulated streamflow results at the
streamflow gauge catchment outlet compared well with the respective observed data sets. It was
concluded that the simulated streamflow record at gauge T3H004 could be used to represent the
simulated streamflow of the abstraction sites (Kempdale Dam, Dam 7, Dam 7.1, Dam 4 and Dam 3).
This was based on the reasoning that the gauge has been used (i.e. WRSM/Pitman) in the calibration
process for portions of Mzimtlava system and its close to the study sites. The simulated and observed

Page 15
streamflow time-series at gauge T3H004 is presented in Figure 3-1, which shows a very good fit to the
observed record.

Table 3-9 Statistical Comparison between Observed and Simulated Streamflows of the
Contributing Catchment Gauge for the Mzimtlava River
Gauge Site
Index Units T3H004
T32C Obs. T32C Sim.
Mean Annual Runoff
million m3 103.02 105.71
(MAR)
Standard Deviation of Annual Flows
million m3 63.47 60.78
(S)
Mean of Logs of Annual Flows million m3 1.90 1.95
Std. Dev. of Logs of Annual Flows - 0.35 0.26

Index of Seasonal Variability percent 26.12 25.80

Notes: Obs. – Observed, Sim. – Simulated

Page 16
Figure 3-1 Comparison of the Simulated and Observed Streamflow at Gauge T3H004

WRSM/Pitman Model Simulation Results at the Abstraction Sites

The rainfall-runoff modelling results for the simulated natural time-series (i.e. no influence of human
activities accounted for in streamflow simulation) and present-day scenarios are provided for the
simulated record period (1920 to 2009) in Table 3-10. The results indicate that the MAR of all the river
systems at the proposed abstraction points decrease from natural catchment conditions to presented
day simulations, most likely as a result of a combination of water abstractions and changes in landuse
characteristics (such as the increase in area under tree plantations) reducing runoff depths.

Table 3-10 Comparison of the Simulated Natural and Present-Day Streamflow Results at the Study
Sites (1920 - 2009)
Simulated Natural Streamflow (MAR - Simulated Present Streamflow (MAR -
Catchment
million m3) million m3)

Kempdale Dam 92.85 88.33

Dam 7 68.00 65.86
Dam 7.1 68.07 65.93
Dam 4 111.33 106.36
Dam 3 129.85 125.04

3.2 Environmental Water Requirements

When planning for water supply schemes, EWR allocations have to be prioritised to maintain
ecological flows within a river. The EWR can potentially have a significant impact on the yield that can

Page 17
be obtained from a river. Therefore, it is necessary to include EWR allocations when undertaking yield
assessments.

An official DWS Reserve Determination Study has not specifically been undertaken for the study area.
Therefore, the surface water reserve in this study was accounted for in the form of an EWR
determination using the Hughes Desktop Reserve Model within the SPATSIM (Spatial and Time Series
Information Modelling) Framework (Hughes, 2004). The EWR determined using the Hughes Desktop
Model provides sufficient environmental flows to account for the environment component of the
Reserve, as per the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) (NWA). The yield assessment results may need
to be updated should a formal Reserve Determination Study be undertaken. The monthly distribution
of low flows was determined in SPATSIM using regional parameters for Type: T. The Dam 7 and Dam
7.1 sites have an EWR Class B rating (largely unmodified), the Dam 3, Crystal Springs and Droewig
catchments have an EWR Class C rating (i.e. moderately modified), whereas the Mzimtlava River
(Kempdale Dam) and the Tributary Mzimtlava catchments have an EWR Class D rating (i.e. largely
modified, due to agriculture, presence of dams and lesser incidences of erosion). This is based on the
DWS Present Ecological State (2014). The distribution was applied to monthly flow duration curves
generated from the simulated natural streamflow time-series.

Once EWRs were estimated, hydrological analyses were conducted to determine system yields at the
proposed abstraction site under present-day land cover conditions. These analyses also served as an
indication of the impacts that present-day land cover has on the streamflow when compared to
natural catchment conditions.

3.3 Simulation Results

3.3.1 Environmental Water Requirements
The simulated natural mean annual runoff (MAR) and EWR results in million cubic metres (million m3)
for the study catchments under investigation are given in Table 3-11. Corresponding graphical
representations of the EWR time-series versus the simulated natural streamflow time-series for the
study catchments are depicted in Annexure B (outputs from the Hughes Desktop Reserve Model). The
figures show the average monthly streamflow trend (black line) and the corresponding average EWR
allocation (blue line). The difference in magnitude of the two-average monthly streamflow time-series
is an indication of the average EWR allocation amounting to a certain percentage of the MAR value as
shown in Table 3-11.

Page 18
Table 3-11 The Naturalised Streamflow and EWR Results in million m3

MAR – Simulated Natural EWR

Catchment Name Percentage EWR of MAR - Acocks (% - Class)
(million m3/annum) (million m3/annum)

Crystal Springs Dam 1.40 0.28 20.2 % - Class C

Droewig 14.84 2.84 19.3 % - Class C
Mzimtlava Tributary 9.84 1.45 14.9% - Class D
Kempdale Dam 92.85 13.52 14.6% - Class D
Dam position 7 (Dam 7) 68.00 22.92 33.7 % - Class B
Dam position 7.1 (Dam 7.1) 68.07 22.94 33.7 % - Class B
Dam position 4 (Dam 4) 111.33 16.20 14.6 % - Class D
Dam position 3 (Dam 3) 129.85 29.02 22.4 % - Class C

3.3.2 Hydrological Analysis: ACRU

Simulated streamflow from the ACRU Model comprises of stormflow and baseflow. Stormflow is
controlled by the magnitude of the effective rainfall and is divided into quickflow (i.e. same day
response) and delayed stormflow. Baseflow is generated from excess water percolating through the
bottom of the active root zone, into the intermediate (vadose) zone, and then into a baseflow store,
from which it is released into the catchment on a daily basis.

The distributions of monthly streamflow, as well as the annual streamflow, for present-day conditions
in the catchments of interest are presented in Table 3-12 to 3-15. From the table it is noted that, on
average, the catchment experienced the highest streamflows in January and the lowest streamflows
in June. The simulated present-day MAR at the abstraction point is highlighted in yellow for ease of
reference. It should be noted that the annual average simulated natural streamflows are higher than
the annual average simulated present-day streamflows. This is likely as a result of the change in land
uses from grassland to current day land cover conditions.

Page 19
Table 3-12 Simulated Streamflow (million m3) Under Present-Day Land Cover Conditions in the Crystal Springs Dam Catchment

Streamflow (million m3)

Statistics
Daily Jan Feb Mar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Mean 0.004 0.201 0.275 0.164 0.079 0.080 0.090 0.052 0.039 0.076 0.073 0.109 0.167 1.405
Min 0.000 0.012 0.012 0.010 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.272
Max 0.409 0.782 1.594 1.154 0.521 1.264 1.293 0.363 0.193 0.915 0.830 0.429 1.095 4.048
SD 0.013 0.190 0.293 0.235 0.109 0.184 0.225 0.068 0.039 0.161 0.138 0.111 0.190 0.915
CV 0.048 0.014 0.016 0.021 0.020 0.034 0.037 0.019 0.014 0.031 0.028 0.015 0.017 0.010
Non-Exceedance
Streamflow (million m3)
Probability
1% 0.000 0.013 0.014 0.010 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.273
2% 0.000 0.014 0.017 0.010 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.013 0.274
5% 0.000 0.018 0.035 0.011 0.010 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.007 0.009 0.016 0.458
10% 0.000 0.027 0.049 0.020 0.013 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.016 0.023 0.533
20% 0.000 0.047 0.073 0.031 0.015 0.015 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.014 0.014 0.030 0.038 0.655
30% 0.001 0.071 0.098 0.051 0.021 0.019 0.016 0.015 0.016 0.021 0.017 0.036 0.061 0.743
33% 0.001 0.080 0.123 0.057 0.023 0.021 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.021 0.020 0.037 0.063 0.754
50% 0.001 0.136 0.210 0.090 0.034 0.028 0.025 0.027 0.026 0.035 0.035 0.067 0.103 1.081
67% 0.002 0.227 0.265 0.119 0.067 0.054 0.045 0.040 0.043 0.052 0.051 0.105 0.198 1.641
75% 0.003 0.296 0.349 0.165 0.083 0.062 0.063 0.070 0.052 0.061 0.058 0.163 0.208 2.089
80% 0.003 0.297 0.386 0.233 0.104 0.090 0.075 0.091 0.061 0.072 0.065 0.179 0.244 2.231
90% 0.007 0.472 0.531 0.350 0.197 0.166 0.137 0.110 0.079 0.119 0.121 0.286 0.303 2.672
95% 0.014 0.615 0.825 0.504 0.342 0.211 0.232 0.151 0.097 0.199 0.245 0.369 0.426 2.902
98% 0.032 0.752 1.092 1.095 0.390 0.342 0.979 0.277 0.170 0.717 0.511 0.418 0.708 3.674
99% 0.052 0.767 1.343 1.124 0.456 0.803 1.136 0.320 0.182 0.816 0.671 0.424 0.902 3.861

Page 20
Table 3-13 Simulated Streamflow (million m3) Under Present-Day Land Cover Conditions in the Droewig Catchment

Streamflow (million m3)

Statistics
Daily Jan Feb Mar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Mean 0.046 2.242 3.162 1.999 0.996 1.012 1.145 0.655 0.490 0.911 0.900 1.263 1.868 16.642
Min 0.001 0.091 0.143 0.076 0.043 0.039 0.035 0.034 0.033 0.031 0.030 0.036 0.066 2.470
Max 5.196 9.194 20.062 15.140 6.277 15.646 16.226 4.404 2.361 11.663 11.469 5.104 12.637 53.757
SD 0.152 2.257 3.629 3.071 1.430 2.292 2.888 0.870 0.496 1.933 1.841 1.313 2.209 11.889
CV 0.654 0.197 0.225 0.301 0.281 0.444 0.494 0.260 0.198 0.416 0.401 0.204 0.232 0.140
Non-Exceedance
Streamflow (million m3)
Probability
1% 0.001 0.134 0.151 0.084 0.048 0.044 0.040 0.039 0.037 0.035 0.040 0.051 0.115 2.604
2% 0.001 0.178 0.159 0.092 0.053 0.050 0.045 0.044 0.042 0.039 0.050 0.065 0.165 2.738
5% 0.002 0.215 0.311 0.118 0.096 0.071 0.066 0.065 0.063 0.058 0.058 0.082 0.174 5.093
10% 0.003 0.246 0.521 0.203 0.129 0.120 0.086 0.084 0.085 0.103 0.102 0.165 0.238 6.158
20% 0.005 0.512 0.788 0.378 0.167 0.162 0.128 0.119 0.124 0.151 0.156 0.307 0.389 7.055
30% 0.007 0.679 1.051 0.566 0.234 0.203 0.159 0.161 0.190 0.228 0.211 0.411 0.603 8.214
33% 0.008 0.847 1.202 0.671 0.275 0.213 0.172 0.163 0.226 0.243 0.228 0.420 0.695 8.649
50% 0.013 1.523 2.318 1.010 0.417 0.339 0.314 0.295 0.334 0.412 0.425 0.773 1.150 12.062
67% 0.023 2.343 2.926 1.468 0.800 0.681 0.574 0.570 0.506 0.627 0.606 1.189 2.090 19.539
75% 0.031 3.080 3.731 1.874 1.010 0.930 0.768 0.948 0.579 0.730 0.709 1.786 2.252 24.541
80% 0.039 3.206 4.114 2.737 1.260 1.185 1.023 1.128 0.777 0.866 0.764 1.995 2.641 26.941
90% 0.081 5.293 6.098 4.266 2.605 2.015 1.939 1.433 1.042 1.557 1.365 3.329 3.422 33.363
95% 0.167 7.513 10.336 6.016 4.430 2.964 2.806 1.846 1.171 2.216 2.902 4.388 5.138 36.122
98% 0.382 9.126 12.746 14.819 5.781 4.215 12.985 3.743 2.241 7.790 6.432 4.528 8.296 46.629
99% 0.621 9.160 16.404 14.979 6.029 9.930 14.605 4.073 2.301 9.726 8.950 4.816 10.467 50.193

Page 21
Table 3-14 Simulated Streamflow (million m3) Under Present-Day Land Cover Conditions in the Mzimtlava Tributary Catchment

Streamflow (million m3)

Statistics
Daily Jan Feb Mar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Mean 0.029 1.563 2.082 1.234 0.559 0.566 0.637 0.356 0.269 0.590 0.538 0.846 1.292 10.534
Min 0.001 0.099 0.087 0.088 0.057 0.047 0.043 0.042 0.039 0.037 0.038 0.052 0.049 2.141
Max 3.046 6.058 11.932 8.597 3.944 9.517 9.599 2.494 1.257 7.255 5.876 3.401 8.222 28.988
SD 0.096 1.439 2.186 1.724 0.799 1.386 1.675 0.468 0.262 1.262 0.996 0.854 1.447 6.589
CV 0.359 0.099 0.113 0.150 0.153 0.263 0.282 0.141 0.104 0.229 0.199 0.108 0.120 0.067
Non-Exceedance
Streamflow (million m3)
Probability
1% 0.001 0.122 0.111 0.089 0.060 0.048 0.044 0.042 0.040 0.045 0.045 0.055 0.072 2.321
2% 0.001 0.145 0.136 0.091 0.064 0.050 0.045 0.043 0.040 0.054 0.052 0.058 0.096 2.500
5% 0.002 0.158 0.285 0.095 0.075 0.064 0.055 0.052 0.050 0.066 0.065 0.088 0.124 3.654
10% 0.002 0.185 0.389 0.151 0.089 0.077 0.066 0.062 0.061 0.077 0.077 0.111 0.167 4.225
20% 0.003 0.373 0.584 0.243 0.122 0.113 0.086 0.075 0.086 0.107 0.106 0.221 0.345 5.261
30% 0.004 0.550 0.779 0.297 0.158 0.139 0.103 0.097 0.105 0.123 0.122 0.301 0.479 5.680
33% 0.005 0.627 0.945 0.377 0.167 0.151 0.116 0.127 0.124 0.134 0.141 0.333 0.519 5.991
50% 0.008 1.160 1.590 0.656 0.254 0.193 0.170 0.160 0.151 0.260 0.257 0.493 0.922 8.937
67% 0.013 1.835 2.084 0.957 0.389 0.311 0.277 0.252 0.318 0.335 0.380 0.870 1.495 11.405
75% 0.018 2.199 2.478 1.296 0.554 0.421 0.335 0.490 0.382 0.458 0.437 1.202 1.703 13.809
80% 0.023 2.363 2.959 1.903 0.723 0.499 0.590 0.573 0.395 0.563 0.542 1.379 1.884 16.587
90% 0.053 3.651 4.172 2.459 1.404 1.139 0.924 0.799 0.555 0.841 0.985 2.155 2.291 19.732
95% 0.110 4.542 6.059 3.973 2.373 1.559 1.779 1.110 0.724 1.693 1.986 2.777 3.249 22.292
98% 0.249 5.662 8.209 7.865 2.903 2.590 7.254 1.774 1.110 5.480 3.742 3.311 5.723 27.476
99% 0.401 5.860 10.070 8.231 3.423 6.054 8.427 2.134 1.184 6.368 4.809 3.356 6.972 28.232

Page 22
3.3.3 Validation of Simulated Streamflows: ACRU
Naturalised Quaternary Catchment datasets from the Water Resources of South Africa 2012 (WR2012)
study (which are calibrated based on gauged streamflow data) were used to validate the simulated
streamflow results under natural catchment conditions (Acocks Veld-Types). The naturalised MAR
volume from the WR2012 study for Quaternary Catchments T32C and T32D was scaled based on the
size of the abstraction sites’ contributing catchment area in relation to that of the Quaternary
Catchment. This scaling allowed for a reasonable comparison to be made of the MAR values. Table 3-
15 presents the MAR (in million m3/annum) for the study catchments simulated natural results and
the scaled naturalised values obtained from the WR2012 study.

Table 3-15 Streamflow Validation for the Proposed Abstractions in the Study Catchments

Simulated Natural Streamflow Scaled WR2012 Streamflow

Catchment Name
(million m3/annum) (million m3/annum)

Crystal Springs Dam 1.40 1.63

Droewig 14.84 18.93
Mzimtlava Tributary 9.84 11.90

From Table 3-15 it is noted that the simulated naturalised streamflow from the study catchments are
lower than the results obtained from the WR2012 study for the Crystal Springs Dam, Droewig and
Mzimtlava Tributary Catchment. The difference in simulated streamflow volumes may be as a result
of:
• The difference in the Quaternary Catchments’ and study catchments’ rainfall depth
distributions;
• Differences in the assumptions related to the catchment soils between the WR2012 study and
this study; and
• The difference in modelling approach, i.e. a daily time-step physical-conceptual model used
in this study versus a monthly time-step parameter-based calibrated model in WR2012.

Based on the validation presented above and JG Afrika’s understanding of the catchment hydrology,
the results obtained from the ACRU Model simulations in this study were considered to be reasonable.

Page 23
 YIELD ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
The supply potential (or “yield”) of the 8 study catchments at the proposed abstraction sites was based
on the simulated streamflows, more specifically:
• ACRU: Available present-day simulated daily runoff from the proposed abstraction site’s
contributing catchment areas (cf. Section 3.1.1).
• WRMS200/Pitman: Simulated monthly present-day streamflow at Kempdale and the
proposed dam sites (cf. Sections 3.1.2.3).
• The allocation of the EWR to the downstream environment (cf. Section 3.2). This allocation
was based on the results obtained as per Section 3.3.1.

4.1 Methodology
The yields for the smaller catchments (modelled via ACRU) of interest were modelled using a simple
daily water balance (similar to that which is applied in monthly time-step models such as the Water
Resources Yield Model [WRYM]). The daily water balance calculates the change in water availability
at a site by accounting for temporal variations in streamflow. The model was used to determine the
number of days where a selected target draft is not fully met. These events are defined as “supply
failures” and are compared with the total number of days analysed in order to assess the likelihood
(or risk) of failure on a daily basis. The analysis period was selected to coincide with the period for
which simulated streamflows were available. This covers the 49-year period from 1 October 1950 to
30 September 1999 (i.e. hydrological years).

For the larger catchments, the yield analysis was undertaken using the Water Resources Yield Model
(WRYM), which was developed by the DWS for the purpose of modelling complex water resource
systems and is used together with other simulation models, pre-processors and utilities for the
purpose of planning and operating the water resources in South Africa and neighbouring countries.

The WRYM uses a sophisticated network solver in order to analyse complex multi-reservoir water
resource systems for a variety of operating policies and is designed for the purpose of assessing a
system’s long and short-term resource capability (or yield). Analyses are undertaken based on a
monthly time-step and for constant development levels, i.e. the system configuration and modelled
demands remain unchanged over the simulation period. The major strength of the model lies in the
fact that it enables the user to configure most water resource system networks using basic building
blocks, which means that the configuration of a system network and the relationships between its

Page 24
elements are defined by means of input data, rather than by fixed algorithms embedded in the
complex source code of the model.

Yield results can be presented in two distinct types of analyses. The first is a historical yield analysis
which is undertaken by analysing the dam over a period of years, based on the available historical
hydro-meteorological data developed in the hydrological analysis. The most important result from
such an analysis is the historical firm yield (HFY) of the dams for the scenario under consideration. The
HFY is determined by means of an iterative process and is defined as the highest annual target draft
that can be supplied from the system without causing a failure. However, while the HFY provides a
reasonable indication of the water resource capability of the dam it does not show the likelihood (or
probability) that the water volume in question could be supplied without failure, since it is possible
that a dry period may still occur that is more severe than any period covered by the historical record.

The second is a long-term stochastic yield analysis (which is carried out for this study). Stochastic yield
analysis is undertaken by repeatedly analysing the dam based on stochastically generated time-series
of monthly historical natural incremental runoff volumes. For this purpose, 201 stochastically
generated streamflow sequences were used over the 90 year period (1920-2009). The results of a
long-term stochastic yield analysis include the assurance of supply associated with each of the target
drafts analysed under a particular scenario, which, in turn, may be used to derive the yield-reliability
characteristics (YRC) curve for the dam. This curve provides a graphical representation of the
relationships between yield and reliability of supply and is used as a basis for allocating a dam’s water
resources to a group of users with varying supply assurance criteria. Generally, the assurance
characteristics of a particular target draft are expressed in terms of its recurrence interval (RI), which
is defined as the average time period between failures. For example, if the RI is shown as “1:200”
years, this implies, on average, one failure every 200 years, or a risk of failure of 1 ÷ 200 = 0.5 % in any
given year. This can also be expressed as an annual assurance of supply of 100 % – 0.5 % = 99.5 %.

Finally, in line with common practice when undertaking long-term yield analyses, the dams were
assumed to be full at the start of the analysis period. This approach is generally considered to be
acceptable in cases where the dam in question is not excessively large relative to the runoff generated
within its catchment areas. Under such circumstances, the selected starting storages have no impact
on the results of the analysis.

Page 25
The WRYM was configured for the dams using Version 4.3 of the model, based on:
• The time-series of historical representative catchment rainfall, which covers a 90-year period
from 1920 to 2000 (hydrological years), for the purpose of simulating rainfall directly onto the
exposed surface area of the dam,
• Average monthly lake evaporation data, for the purpose of simulating evaporation losses from
the exposed surface area of the dam,
• The simulated monthly streamflow data time-series adopted for the study catchments, which
covers a 90-year period from 1920 to 2000 (hydrological years), for the purpose of modelling
historical inflows to the dam.
• Downstream EWR’s, for the purpose of modelling the impacts of associated flow releases in
the relevant scenario, and
• The physical characteristics of the dams at using survey data provided by the Client.

4.2 Results
The water resource and yield assessment results are presented in (cf. Table 4-1). The results indicate
that a yield of 1.87, 0.89 and 1.13 Mℓ/day can be obtained from the Crystal Springs Dam, Droewig
catchment, Mzimtlava Tributary and Kempdale Dam at the 98% assurance of supply level, respectively,
while allowing for EWR’s. Umgeni Water (2016) reported that the Crystal Springs Dam catchment has
a sustainable yield of 4.5 Mℓ/day of which 2.5 Mℓ/day is supplied by groundwater (i.e. springs).
Therefore, the dam yields 2.0 Mℓ/day which is similar to the yield reported in this study. The yields of
both the Mzimtlava Tributary and Droewig River are low especially considering their larger
contributing catchments. This is possibly due to extensive commercial agriculture in these catchments.

Table 4-1 Yield Analysis Results for Crystal Springs Dam and the Two Tributaries of the Mzimtlava River

Catchment Supply Assurance (%) Yield (Mℓ/day)

Crystal Springs Dam 98 1.87
Droewig River 98 0.79
Mzimtlava Tributary 98 1.13

The WRYM was set up (see Appendix C) to assess the yields of each dam (at various heights) in order
to meet the water demands for 2030. For this study, the deficit is taken as 14.05 Mℓ/day (5.13 Mm3/a).
The yield at Crystal Springs Dam (i.e. 1.87 Mℓ/day) is taken into account in this regard, therefore the
deficit is 12.18 Mℓ/day (4.45 Mm3/a). Appendix D presents the Yield-Reliability Curves of each of the
dams. Table 4.2 presents a summary of the results simulated in for the existing Kempdale Dam and

Page 26
the four dam options. The results show the stochastically generated yields of each dam at various dam
heights (based on survey) at the 98% assurance of supply level.
The results indicate the following:
• At a dam full supply level of 1279 mAMSL, Kempdale Dam can theoretically provide a yield of
3.8 Mℓ/day. When the yield at Crystal Springs Dam is taken into account, 5.6 Mℓ/day would
be available for KWSS, which is sufficient to meet the projected water demand in 2030. Springs
will also increase available water for the KWSS.
• Dam options 7 and 7.1, which are upstream of the existing Kempdale Dam, can provide a yield
of 3.8 and 4.5 Mℓ/day at a dam wall height of 1362 mAMSL.
• Dam options 4 and 3, which are downstream of Kempdale Dam, have the largest contributing
catchments and hence would require smaller dam volumes to cover water demand deficits
for 2030.

Table 4-2 Yield Modelling Results Summary for the Kempdale Dam and the Four Dam Options

Dam
Dam Volume Yield (Mℓ/day) at RI (years), Supply Assurance (%)
Catchments FSL
mAMSL Mm3 1:50 / 98%
1281 1.21 7.10
Kempdale Dam
1279 0.51 3.80
1362 0.70 5.13
Dam 7
1361 0.29 3.80
1362 0.88 5.50
Dam 7.1
1361 0.44 4.50
Dam 4 1243 0.03 6.00
Dam 3 1214 0.16 5.00

Page 27
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Zimile Consulting Engineers appointed JG Afrika to undertake a hydrological assessment to determine
the volume of water that can be sustainably abstracted from the existing Crystal Springs and Kempdale
Dams as well to identify potential sources to augment water supply to the KWSS in order to meet the
water demands by 2030. JG Afrika identified the Mzimtlava River tributary and Droewig as potential
sources, and the Client provided four possible dam options to supply water to the KWSS.

A minimum desired target draft from the abstraction site was not provided to JG Afrika at the outset
of this investigation. However, from the literature review that was undertaken it was found that by
2030 the existing water sources would not meet the water demands, and there would be a deficit of
5.13 Mm3/a. Therefore, a water resource study was undertaken to determine the volume of water
that can be abstracted from the respective abstraction points at the 98% assurance of supply level in
order to avoid the projected water demand deficit. The 98% supply assurance is a DWS standard for
potable yield assessments and implies that the water resource will only fail to supply the required
demand 2% of the time. The yield analysis included an allocation for the surface water reserve, which
was accounted for in the form of an EWR determination using the Hughes Desktop Reserve Model
within the SPATSIM (Spatial and Time Series Information Modelling) Framework (Hughes, 2004).

The rainfall-runoff modelling simulations were undertaken with the use of the ACRU and the
WRSM2000/Pitman Models, from which the simulated natural time-series were used in the EWR
determination based on a Class C and D EWR. These input variables were used as input into the WRYM
in order to simulate various yield scenarios.

The run-of-river and dam yields result from the hydrological investigation indicated that:
• Crystal Springs Dam can sustainably provide a yield of 1.87 Mℓ/day,
• The Droewig River and Mzimtlava Tributary can sustainably yield 0.89 and 1.13 Mℓ/day,
respectively. These are potential sources for the KWSS.
• Kempdale Dam can theoretically provide a yield of 3.8 Mℓ/day at a supply level of 1279
mAMSL and up to 1.21 Mℓ/day at a dam wall height of 1281 mAMSL.
• It is understood only one of the dam options will be considered if Kempdale is not selected
(i.e. increasing the dam wall). All the dam options (i.e. Dam 7, 7.1, 3 and 4) at the specified
wall heights (see section 4.2) can provide more the necessary yields to avoid water deficit by
2030.

Page 28
Recommendations that can be made from the investigations completed in this study:
• EWR releases reduces the yield of the dam significantly should be included in the daily
operation of the dams to ensure that the downstream communities and ecology is
maintained.
• If the dams are utilised beyond their sustainable 98% assurance of supply, then there will be
less yield available in the drier periods.

Page 29
 REFERENCES
Acocks, J.P.H. 1988. Veld types of South Africa (2nd Ed.). Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South
Africa No. 40, Botanical Research Institute, Department of Agricultural Technical Services, South
Africa.
Bailey, A.K. and Middleton, B.J. 2009. Executive Summary and Book of Maps. March 2009. WRC Report
No. TT 380/08, Version 1 compiled by the WR2005 Consortium of SSI, SRK Consulting, Knight
Piésold, Arcus Gibb, Ninham Shand, PD Naidoo & Associates and Umfula Wempilo Consulting
as part of the Water Resources of South Africa 2005 Study for the Water Research Commission
(WRC), Pretoria, South Africa.
Department of Water & Sanitation (DWS). 2012. Present Ecological State, Ecological Importance &
Ecological Sensitivity: Desktop PESEIS assessment. [Internet]. Available from:
https://www.dwa.gov.za/iwqs/rhp/eco/peseismodel.aspx.
GeoTerraImage. 2014. South African National Landcover (2013-2014) Dataset.
Hughes D.A. (ed.). 2004. SPATSIM, an Integrating Framework for Ecological Reserve Determination
and Implementation. WRC Report No. TT 245/04. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South
Africa.
Pitman W.V., Kakebeeke, J.P. and Bailey, A.K. 2006. WRSM (Enhanced) User’s Guide. May 2006. Draft
final document compiled by SSI and TiSD, in association.
Schulze, R.E., Maharaj, M., Lynch, S.D., Howe, B.J. and Melvil-Thomson, B. 1997. South African Atlas
of Agrohydrology and Climatology: Water Research Commission, Pretoria, Report TT69/95.
Schulze, R.E. and Smithers, J. C. 1995. Hydrology and Agrohydrology: A text to accompany the ACRU
3.00 Agrohydrological Modelling System. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, Report
TT69/95.
Schulze, R.E. and Smithers, J.C. 2004. The ACRU Modelling System as of 2002: Background, Concepts,
Structure, Output, Typical Applications and Operations. In: Schulze, R.E. (Ed) Modelling as a Tool
in Integrated Water Resources Management: Conceptual Issues and Case Study Applications.
Water Research Commission, Pretoria, RSA, WRC Report 749/1/02.Chapter 3, 47-83.
Schulze, R.E., Tadross, M. and Hewitson, B.C. 2009. Regional Aspects of Climate Change and Their
Secondary Impacts on Water Resources. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, RSA. WRC
Report 1562/1/09.
Water Resources of South Africa study. 2012. WR2012. [Internet]. Available from:
http://waterresourceswr2012.co.za/resource-centre/.

Page 30
 ANNEXURE A – WRSM2000/PITMAN NETWORK DIAGRAMS

Figure 7-1 WRSM2000/PITMAN Network Diagram for Tertiary Catchment T32A, T32B and T32C

Page 31
Figure 7-1 WRSM2000/PITMAN Network Diagram for Tertiary Catchment T32D

Page 32
ANNEXURE B – GRAPHS FOR NATURALISED STREAMFLOW AGAINST THE EWR

Page 33
 1.80

1.60
Flows
EWRs
1.40
Monthly Flows (million m3)

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Hydrological Year

Figure 8-1 Naturalised Streamflow (black line) and Class C EWR (red line) for Abstractions on the Crystal Springs Dam

Page 34
 20.00

Flows
18.00
EWRs

16.00
Monthly Flows (million m3)

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Hydrological Year
Figure 8-2 Naturalised Streamflow (black line) and Class C EWR (blue line) for Abstractions from the Droewig Catchment Outlet

Page 35
 14.00

Flows
EWRs
12.00

10.00
Monthly flows (million m3)

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Hydrological year
Figure 8-3 Naturalised Streamflow (black line) and Class D EWR (blue line) for Abstractions from the Mzimtlava Tributary Catchment Outlet

Page 36
 140.00
Flows
EWR
120.00
Monthly flows (million m3)

100.00

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Hydrological year
Figure 8-4 Naturalised Streamflow (black line) and Class D EWR (blue line) for Abstractions from the Kempdale Dam

Page 37
ANNEXURE C – WRYM NETWORK DIAGRAMS

Page 38
Figure 9-1 Network diagram Used in the WRYM Setup for Kempdale Dam, Dam 7 and Dam 7.1

Page 39
Figure 9-2 Network diagram Used in the WRYM Setup for Dam 4 and Dam 3

Page 40
ANNEXURE D – YIELD-RELIABILITY CURVES FOR THE WRYM SCENARIOS

Page 41
Figure 10-1 Yield-Reliability curve for Kempdale Dam at Dam Wall Level 1281 mASML

Page 42
Figure 10-2 Yield-Reliability curve for Kempdale Dam at Dam Wall Level 1279 mASML

Page 43
Figure 10-3 Yield-Reliability curve for Dam 7 at Dam Wall Level 1362 mASML

Page 44
Figure 10-4 Yield-Reliability curve for Dam 7 at Dam Wall Level 1361 mASML

Page 45
Figure 10-5 Yield-Reliability curve for Dam 7.1 at Dam Wall Level 1362 mASML

Page 46
Figure 10-6 Yield-Reliability curve for Dam 7.1 at Dam Wall Level 1361 mASML

Page 47
Figure 10-7 Yield-Reliability curve for Dam 4 at Dam Wall Level 1246 mASML

Page 48
Figure 10-8 Yield-Reliability curve for Dam 4 at Dam Wall Level 1246 mASML

Page 49
Figure 10-9 Yield-Reliability curve for Dam 3 at Dam Wall Level 1215 mASML

Page 50
Figure 10-10 Yield-Reliability curve for Dam 3 at Dam Wall Level 1214 mASML

Page 51