Cape Town’s new water restrictions

In case you’ve been living under a rock, the word on the bone-dry street is that South Africa has very little water. This is allegedly due to several factors: poorly maintained infrastructure, a lack of adequate rainfall during the winter just past, and overuse by ignorant and/or uncaring consumers. And, because sorting out infrastructure is – pardon the pun – no quick fix, and the rain dancing seems to have failed to appease whatever sky fairy it was directed at, guess who is going to have to bear the brunt of the plans to save water?

Spoiler Alert: It are you and I.

Cape Town is permanently on Level 1 water restrictions because there’s not enough wet stuff around to be wasteful at any time, but given that the dams are just 63% full (vs 90+% for the last three years at this time), the Mayoral Committee recently decided that puny Level 1 restrictions simply weren’t doing enough to adequately conserve water, and has suggested that more draconian Level 2 restrictions be brought in, and that looks set to happen on the 1st January.

Here’s a list of what those new Level 2 restrictions entail:

Restrictions applicable to all customers

  • Watering (with drinking water from municipal supply) of gardens, flower beds, sports fields, parks, lawns and other open spaces allowed only on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays for a maximum of one hour per premises either before 09:00 or after 18:00. This includes watering with buckets or automated sprinkler systems.
  • Watering via boreholes and or well points falls under the same restrictions as above. Residential users are allowed only one hour a day per premises whereas businesses, industries and City or Government departments are allowed two hours a day per premises.
  • No watering will be permitted within 24 hours of rainfall that provides adequate saturation. Customers making use of boreholes or other sources are not exempt from this.
  • Special users (e.g. golf courses and schools) can apply to the Director: Water & Sanitation for exemption from any of the above restrictions by emailing Water.Restrictions@capetown.gov.za.
  • When watering with alternative water resources like harvested rain water, re-used grey water or treated effluent water, you are encouraged to comply with the above restrictions.
  • If other water sources (e.g. boreholes, well points, grey water re-use, treated effluent water) are utilised, all customers should ensure that they display signage to this effect that is clearly visible from a public thoroughfare.
  • No automatic top-up systems are allowed for swimming pools. It is recommended that all swimming pools be covered by a pool cover to avoid evaporation when not in use.
  • Ornamental water fountains and water features are to be operated only by recycling the water.
Restrictions applicable to residential customers
  • Washing of vehicles is only allowed with hosepipes fitted with automatic self-closing devices, or with waterless products.
  • No washing or hosing down of hard-surfaced or paved areas with drinking water from a tap is allowed.
  • Residents are encouraged to replace all taps, showerheads and other plumbing components with water efficient parts or technologies.

Red emphasis by me. Points two and three may be of particular interest to our local schools, who – using borehole water – irrigate their fields during the day, come blazing sunshine, pouring rain or umshado wezinkawu. And there are several other quite significant rules there as well, I think you’ll note. Here’s a poster with all the info on.

However, as ever, the issues will be threefold.

Firstly, people won’t hear (or will claim not to have heard) about the restrictions and will plead ignorance. This happens every year with the road closures for the State Opening Of Parliament. Every year.
Secondly, those who do hear about the restrictions will ignore them anyway, because that’s what South Africans do – it’s obviously about other people, not them – and thirdly, that’s fine because there will be absolutely no enforcement anyway.

Oh dear.

But there is light at the end of the tunnel. Because those all too easy excuses won’t save you from the increased charges you’ll be paying. For an average domestic customer, the differences in price are as follows:

Fullscreen capture 2015-12-09 123413 PM.bmp

But, since this is a “revenue-neutral” plan, what will save you from the increased charges is if you cut your water consumption by 10% from its current level. And, if you follow the rules and the recommendations above, that shouldn’t be too difficult.

That said, as consumers we were told that if each of us were to lower our electricity usage by 10%, there would be no need for loadshedding. And that blatantly didn’t happen. For all the reasons given above, funnily enough.

So, I predict outrage from about mid-February, when the first billing cycle from the 1st January increases lands in the post and email inboxes of those poor people who “just didn’t know”, or just didn’t care. I’d like to think that my Capetonian readers won’t fall into either of those two categories. I’ve done my bit right here on at least one of them.
Why not share this post so that your friends join the water saving party too?

UPDATE: via @JacquesR here are some FAQs from the infamous 2005 drought, lending further detail to waterwise behaviour.

For soundbites only

This is a really rubbish column. (No, not this one, the one I’m about to link to.)
(Jeez. Don’t be so rude.)
(Honestly.)

Anyway, as I was about to say, THIS is a rubbish column. The warning signs are all there. It’s got scare quotes in the title. It’s unscientific, it’s biased, it’s pants. It uses only carefully selected facts from pieces of research that suit its narrative. It’s so bad that you could quite understand sad-faced LCHF cult members holding it up as an example of some of the stuff that their sinister movement has to put up with, while conveniently ignoring the fact that they themselves use exactly the same M.O..

It does the anti-Banting brigade no favours, save for this wonderful analogy of Noakes’ bizarre disciples:

Here’s how I’d describe Noakes’s trusting fans: told by Noakes that they’re flying, they yell: “Look at me” and “So far, so good” as they plummet past a 10th storey window and plunge towards the ground below.

Because yes, when you haven’t yet hit the ground, all does seem to be going to plan. The weight has fallen, you’re full of energy, and you’ve never felt better (maybe because you haven’t thought of the long term consequences). But then that’s probably because no-one really knows what they are.

Even pseudoscientific websites like the medically-challenged dietdoctor and the falsely authoritative authoritynutrition which claim to have “scientific validation” of the long-term safety of the diet, can’t actually provide us with anything more than studies done over 2 years, when you look more closely. That’s certainly long-term if you’re a hamster, and positively eternal if you’re a mayfly, but for humans, that doesn’t really even enter into “medium-term”.

Look, hey. My body is my body. Yours is yours. You’re more than welcome to fill your body with whatever you want as far as I’m concerned. And I even have the manners not to (outwardly) judge you for it. Unlike most of Tim’s weird flock.

Dear Scam Victim

Solace at last, in the shape of an email from Juliet Joel.

For a bit of background on this story, all you have to do is to remember back to when I was a victim from Scam?
No?
Me neither.

But supposing I had been defrauded, it would all be fine because remittance officer Juliet Joel (you may remember her from SYPNIC BANK BENIN PLC. SCAM COMPENSATION OFFICE DEPARTMENT WORLD BANK/UNITED NATIONS) is here to help:

Screenshot

At first, I was worried that this might also be some sort of scam, but I was immediately reassured by the good names of SYPNIC BANK BENIN PLC. and WORLD BANK/UNITED NATIONS being included therein. After all, it’s highly unlikely that good, proud organisations such as these would be tangled up in any sort of naughtiness. Amiright?

Seems, as they say, legit.

And if there really is $1,500,000.00 USD (One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars Only) available and I have been listed/approved for this payment as one of the scammed victims to be paid this amount, then why would I say no? Why would anyone say no? After all, that’s a healthy R21,532,650.00 ZAR (Twenty One Million Five Hundred Thirty Two Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Rand Only) in JZ’s Monopoly money.

I’m already halfway through filling the not ever so taxing form (most difficult bit by miles being the very short field for my address) for further verifications and scan copy of my passport. After all, without them having this information, how can I expect to be fed with further modalities?

It’s a question I know we’ve all asked.

Yep, when it comes to helping Juliet Joel out so that she can help me out, I am there in the manner of an rather keen ursine.

 

I don’t mind telling you that I have a very, VERY good feeling about this.

Where Eagles Dare

A funny thing happened while I was writing up the Constantia Wine Route post yesterday.

The preamble follows.
Firstly, I wanted to link back to the last Constantia Wine Route post I did. Standard practice there. I had a quick read through it as well.

And then secondly, for some reason (alcohol + lack of an introduction + no name badge + my age (whatevs) + [one last excuse here]) I couldn’t recall the name of the guy who served us at Eagles’ Nest. UCT student, doing Business Science and Commerce, passion for wine, third season working there, favourite Eagles’ Nest wine: Viognier, top knot, possible beard. Nice chap. Nameless.
So I went to the Eagle’s Nest website, clicked on ABOUT and selected PEOPLE BEHIND OUR WINES. Maybe they had a ‘meet and greet our front room staff’ thing. They didn’t.

What they did have was the Executive Director, the Winemaker, the Farm Manager etc etc.
And they had this too:

Fullscreen capture 2015-11-30 034909 PM.bmp

That’s Kaylee Stewart. She’s the Brand Manager: Tasting Room, Sales & Marketing (Western Cape).
Says her blurb:

Kaylee joined the Eagles’ Nest team at the end of 2011 to build on her families involvement. Since, she has enthusiastically taken up the role of managing the tasting room, local Cape Town trade and fulfilling certain public relation and marketing roles.

(Families [sic] involvement being her Dad is the Executive Director)
But what would “fulfilling certain public relation and marketing roles” actually entail, though? And how would one prove oneself capable of handling such a taxing role?

Might it include putting promotional comments about Eagles’ Nest on blog posts about the Constantia Wine Route, even when the said blog posts don’t mention Eagles’ Nest?

I doubt it.

Fullscreen capture 2015-11-30 035953 PM.bmp

What are the chances that someone called Kaylee Stewart thought that a wine farm run by Peter Stewart was the best of all the wine farms in the Constantia Valley? It’s almost too coincidental to not be the same Kaylee Stewart that now fulfils certain public relation and marketing roles.
And yet, it’s obviously not the same Kaylee Stewart because surely she would have mentioned that she took her family members down from England “because Dad is the Executive Director there”. And she would just have given her Pops a call and asked when the Shiraz was coming out, no? None of this “mid May if I am not mistaken” nonsense.

Right.

And yet, even if it were the same Kaylee Stewart (which it isn’t), then there’s nothing illegal about what she did. Rather disingenuous, ethically iffy, sure, but that’s about it.
If it had have been the same Kaylee Stewart (which it wasn’t) she would have known that if she had ‘come out’ as being connected to the Eagles’ Nest estate, readers would obviously have taken everything positive she said about the place with a pinch of salt. And so if it was her (and we’re all aware that it wasn’t) she would have simply omitted any reference to the fact that it was her family’s business anyway. Clever lady.
(It’s worth noting that according to the website, the real Kaylee Stewart wasn’t working for the vineyard when the comment was posted.)

For me, it raises an interesting point with regard to bloggers recommending products. We wouldn’t have believed what the real Kaylee Stewart had said if we’d known about her family’s business, and yet people still read blog posts for which the blogger has been paid or has received free accommodation/food/services or goods and they lap up the positive reviews. It works for the blogger, because they get money and/or free stuff, and it works for the company involved because they get the positive review and the increase in sales. We can all name several (or more) local blogs that do this.

People aren’t going to believe everything that they read, though, are they? Except obviously yes, enough of them do, because otherwise it would all stop. Personally, I can’t understand it. It’s actually fairly depressing that no-one seems to think any deeper than the actual words they are reading when there’s a paid-for review. Most of the time there’s absolutely no disclosure by the blogger anyway, so I guess you’d never know.

These days, when I get asked to do reviews on stuff, I make it clear from the outset that if it’s not very good, I will write that it’s not very good. And suddenly there are very few takers. Maybe because they don’t have the confidence in the product, but more likely that they know that they can get the next blogger they call to write something nice – however poor the actual experience – by just giving them some money or make up or a helicopter trip or a phone or whatever.

Whatever happened to integrity, hey?

Outrageous

It’s all the outrage these days to be outraged about things. It’s driven by social media, and fuelled by the websites of the local tabloids and the brain-dead, act-first-don’t-think-later people who populate those places. It seems that people are almost going looking for things to become upset by, a sort of Münchhausen’s Syndrome for the modern generation. And the things that people are getting outraged by are getting smaller, pettier and ever more difficult to predict.

We had this over a misread price label, we had outrage over the outrage over the reaction (or lack of reaction) to the Paris attacks, we’ve had people trying (but not really succeeding) to light outrage fires, and we’re going to have outrage over something else today. Probably.

But I got thinking (foolishly) about the stuff that we haven’t had outrage over yet. Stuff that, given the current climate for instant up-in-arms-ism, you’d have thought would have set the masses off.

  • The carbon footprint of the light aircraft that flies over Cape Town during rush hour, and over Newlands during rugby and cricket matches, towing a big advertising banner behind it.
  • The company that it advertises on the big advertising banner it tows behind it 90% of the time, which is a lap-dancing club.
  • People wasting water. As the so-called “water crisis” bites harder in SA, why has no-one come up with the #watershaming hashtag yet? When we had no electricity, people were quick to point out those being wasteful. With water shortages in 4 (is it 5?) provinces already, why has the same not happened with water?
  • The police vans that push their way through the traffic on the M3 each morning, taking inmates from Pollsmoor prison to court.
  • iTunes. All of it.

And that’s just for starters.

I’m both surprised and irritated that these things haven’t been considered adequate fodder for widespread outrage. Not least because I’d like to see something done about iTunes.