Success factors in ensuring resilient water supplies for critical facilities:
New research points to key factors in groundwater planning
4 Feb 2025 by The Water Diplomat
Current day disasters – whether they are natural or man-made - can potentially have a wide reaching and negative impacts. It is increasingly important to try to reduce the impact of such disasters, and for this reason, many researchers undertake studies which aim to support the effort of developing strategies to protect infrastructure systems by reducing hazards, risks, and threats from natural and manmade events. In a context in which the available resources are limited, the current trend is to prioritise infrastructure so that the protection of the most 'critical' infrastructure systems are given priority.
In a paper published in the journal Water International, researchers Kode, Kanyerere and Pietersen have evaluated the response of the Provincial Government of the Western Cape in South Africa to a severe water crisis experienced in 2017. The researchers recognise that critical facilities such as health care facilities cannot function for long without water and function most effectively with piped water supplies. However, in order to prepare for exceptional circumstances caused by climate change or by human factors, such facilities will increasingly need to prepare to operate independently of local utility provided water for both emergency purposes and during and after disasters.
The Western Cape government developed localised groundwater supply systems for critical facilities in a context of acute water shortages, in which they did not have the time to evaluate all available strategies. Nor, the researchers point out, did there appear to be any readily available framework which could be drawn on to design for the use of this strategy. This was an important reason for the researchers to evaluate the success of the programme and identify the determinants of success in ensuring that localised groundwater supply systems are sustainable and resilient to change.
In the absence of a readily available framework for the evaluation of resilience, the researchers developed their own evaluation framework and applied it to the assessment of the 94 critical service delivery facilities that were included in the province’s groundwater programme. Ten different types of outcomes were observed, and these were assigned a score on a scale from one to ten, ranging from ‘groundwater failure – nothing possible’ at one end of the scale, to ‘full potable water supply’ at the other end of the scale. The researchers monitored the effectiveness of the strategy of using localized groundwater supply systems by reviewing the outcomes for water supply in each case through time and looked also at the main reasons for the outcomes, or changes to these outcomes.
Reviewing the strategy, the researchers came to the conclusion that in seven of the ten categories of system established under the groundwater programme, the level of resilience was increased at the respective facilities. For the remaining three categories, the resilience was no worse than it had been before the intervention.
On the basis of their observations, the researchers listed a range of considerations that influenced the success of the resilience strategy for each facility. On the basis of this list, they distilled ten critical success factors (CSF) for the implementation of this strategy. These are listed below.
CSF#1: Obviously, the strategy of providing groundwater to critical facilities depends on the availability of sufficient groundwater: if there is insufficient local groundwater close to the facility, the strategy cannot be pursued.
CSF#2: The quality of the groundwater is a key factor determining the cost of the system to be installed: installing a reverse osmosis system for example is expensive and can only be justified if the facility itself is highly significant at the provincial level. Other options are available such as blending groundwater with piped water, or using the groundwater only for sanitation purposes, but again these choices depend on the quality of the groundwater available.
CSF#3: Designing and developing local groundwater supplies must be done in line with guidelines and standards provided by the relevant authorities, to avoid the arising of questions around compliance. To avoid confusion arising, clear and documented support to pursue the strategy should be achieved from the local water authority at the outset. Failing this, only non-potable solutions should be taken into consideration.
CSF#4: CSF#3 above presupposes knowledge of the requirements, guidelines and processes that have been established by the authorities. It is critical to obtain documented requirements and processes for initial and ongoing regulatory compliance, including the testing and commissioning regime, before proceeding.
CSF#5: These requirements and processes need to be the fundamental basis on which systems are designed.
CSF#6: For the sake of clarity, even if the requirements and processes are included in the system design, they further need to be incorporated into the service provider contracts for the implementing engineers and operations and maintenance contractors.
CSF#7: Beyond compliance with requirements and processes, a holistic view of the installed systems is necessary which includes consideration for sustainable pumping regimes. Care needs to be taken to avoid biofouling and to maintain a relatively constant drawdown level. These aspects also need to be included in the contracts of service providers.
CSF#8: To ensure that the installed system is well understood by all parties, the operations and maintenance service provider, the facility management and the technical staff should be involved in the design development and must sign off on the approved system designs.
CSF#9: A key element of resilience is a continual assessment of the potential cost of a water failure at critical facilities, which includes the likelihood of failure and the impact of such failure.
CSF#10: If water availability conditions improve and the immediate threat of disaster has subsided, the level of water resilience at smaller and/or less financially sustainable systems can be reduced from a cost-benefit perspective, pending the next potential disaster.