Comparative results in the reduction of Nonrevenue Water Consumption Using Various Technology Soluti

1
Comparative results in the reduction of
Non-revenue Water Consumption Using Various
Technology Solutions

• Case Study Data
• Pieter Avenant (ODI)
• Presented by Graeme Tuck

2
Background

• Devices applied to already restricted consumers
• Average household consumption 23.2 kl / month
• 49 of Restricted consumers used over 40 kl /
  month
• Each device installed in a Ring-Fenced area and
  operated for extended period under actual field
  conditions
• Objectives were to evaluate
• Product technical details
• Operational efficiency
• Financial indicators
• Consumer perception

3
Valve Stem Lockers
4
Flow Rate Restrictors
5
Electronic Flow Limiter
6
Results
7
Evaluation

• Objectives were to evaluate
• Product technical details
• 1st Place Flow Limiter
• Tamper Detection
• Data Logging
• Carry-over
• Operational efficiency
• 1st Place Flow Limiter
• 75 reduction achieved
• Financial indicators
• 1st Place Flow Limiter
• Capital Redemption in 6 months
• Consumer perception
• 1st Place Flow Limiter
• Lowest rate of reconnection

8
Flow Limiter
32 Kilolitres / month average
9 Kilolitres / month average
2,200,000 Litres

• Average monthly saving per household 23Kl
• Savings 23 Kl x 228 Households x R3.65 /
  Kl R19,140 / month
• Payback in 7.5 months
• Limit set at 12 kl per month, but consumption
  averaged 9 kl
• Explanation The Flow Limiter acts as a Consumer
  Education tool promoting the efficient use of
  water resulting in VOLUNTARY reduced water
  wastage.

9
Conclusion

• Two different types of restriction
• Punitive
• for those that can pay but do not (delinquents)
• Best option is Flow Rate restriction as the high
  level of inconvenience will encourage payment and
  reconnection
• Cooperative
• for those that cannot pay (Indigents)
• Best option is Flow Limiter
• Caps consumption, promotes conservation and
  education, highest quality of service