Water usage in Australian indigenous communitie

Darryl Day (7230053)

Emma Yuen (7230047)

Goen Ho (2237677)

Kathryn Clarkson (7230050)

Martin Anda (7220591)

English

Loughborough University Institutional Repository

YUEN, HO, ANDA, CLARKSON and DAY15929th WEDC International Conference Abuja, Nigeria, 2003Water usage in Australian indigenous communitiesEmma Yuen, Goen Ho, Martin Anda, Kathryn Clarkson and Darryl Day, AustraliaTOWARDS THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALSWATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT options for communitieswith naturally occurring levels of uranium above the Aus-tralian Drinking Water Guidelines were being investigated.Three remote Indigenous communities in the Central Desertsregion of the Northern Territory were assessed for non-potable water usage patterns and drinking water intakeduring the winter of 2003. The guidelines for most chemi-cal parameters with chronic effects assume a daily waterintake of 2 litres per person. The estimated 95 percentile tapwater intake was found to be approximately 2 litres.However, interpersonal variations, seasonal intake re-quirements and problems with measurement could result inthe acceptable average daily intake being exceeded.Drinking water has been observed to be obtained fromthe most convenient source irrespective of water quality orpalatability. This creates a problem in the design of dualsupply systems, where users are required to obtain drinkingwater from a designated potable supply water point, usu-ally the kitchen sink. In the communities visited, theoutdoor tap is commonly used for cooking and drinking,but is also used for yard watering and body temperaturecontrol. Yard watering and cooling both use substantialamounts of water leaving the problem of where to providethe potable supply water points most efficiently. Waterintake, and potable supply requirements are quantified inthis paper while water usage patterns are briefly discussed.KEYWORDS: Demand, Water quality, Water sources,Water supply, Health aspects, Drinking water intakeIntroductionMany remote Indigenous communities in Australia arelocated in arid regions and are associated with limited ormarginal water supplies. Without water in these communi-ties, inhabitants may be forced to move to the larger townswhere traditional foods are unavailable, alcohol is readilyobtainable and traditionally segregated groups are mixedleading to higher social unrest. This study was conductedduring the winter of 2003 in three communities in theCentral Desert region of the Northern Territory, Australia.All communities had reticulated water supplied to allpermanent dwellings. Communities 1 and 3 spokeAnmatyerre and the population was between 150-300.Community 2 was primarily composed of Kaytej speakersand had a population of between 10-60. Due to the highlymobile nature of the Kaytej and Anmatyerre, large in-creases or decreases in population can occur overnight dueto ceremonies, sporting events or during periods of mourn-ing. All communities had levels of naturally occurringuranium in their water supplies above the AustralianDrinking Water Quality Guidelines (NHMRC andARMCANZ, 1996). These guidelines list the value foruranium at 0.02 mg/l based on average daily direct andindirect water intake of 2 litres person per day (L/p/d) fora body mass of 70 kg. This guideline value is also based ona lifetime exposure to uranium, rather than a short-term,acute dose. The high temperatures (up to 45 degreesCelsius) and low humidity (mean 3 pm relative humidityaround 25%) could result in higher hydration require-ments in the central deserts region and hence necessitatemore conservative guidelines to be adopted. This researchaddresses two main issues. Firstly, whether the currentwater intake poses a potential risk to public health given thedaily consumption of uranium in drinking water. Secondly,how water supplies can be managed to alleviate this prob-lem in a manner best suited to the needs of the community.MethodologyA study was conducted during the winter months of Mayand June to investigate drinking water intake. This in-volved the use of language interpreter assisted surveys ofcommunity residents, observation and measurement ofintake on hunting trips, physical measurement of volumeprior to and after consumption and collection of storerecords to estimate direct water intake. Surveys addressedsources of water used, preferences, factors affecting intakeand quantified intake of water on the previous day throughrecall of beverages and food consumed. Physical measure-ment involved the provision of 11 litres of water to allhouseholds in the community with daily measurementstaken of the amount remaining. Store records were col-lected for average summer and average winter purchasesand provided a comparison of survey results for purchasedbeverages with actual winter intake measured by storeturnover.Water consumption patterns were determined by indi-vidual or focus group discussions, observation around thecommunity and quantified by water meters. Logged watermeters were installed at the main household connectionand mechanical meters were installed on various waterfixtures in two houses (houses A and J) located in Commu-nity 3.ResultsWater IntakeThe results are tabulated in table 1 for the surveys, obser-vation, measurement and flow meters. With the exceptionYUEN, HO, ANDA, CLARKSON and DAY160of the flow meters, the results are comparable indicatingthat all methods contribute to knowledge on water intake,despite measuring slightly different types of water intake.Only direct intake through beverage consumption wasmeasured because indirect intake was too difficult tomeasure as part of this study. The 95 percentile reported bysurvey respondents was 2.775 L/p/d for both water andpurchased drinks as direct intake. However, the 95 percen-tile for direct tap water intake only was 2.075 L/p/d andonly just exceeds 2 l/p/d. These survey results were com-pared to the researcher’s observations during hunting tripslasting between 2 and 7 hours. A comparison of the twomethods indicated that observation provided a higherestimate for four individuals compared to a survey thefollowing day. The observation method also indicated thatfluid intake was actually higher during periods of physicalactivity as expected.Another method employed was to supply 11 litre bottlesto houses and monitor the amount used daily. This methodprovides not dissimilar values to the reported direct tapwater in the surveys although the average and 95 percentilewas slightly higher possibly due to the inclusion of cookingwater with drinking water by this method.Meters installed on two houses enabled the monitoringof total flow through kitchen and laundry taps, which iscommonly used for drinking, cooking and washing dishes.This was between 30 to 66 L per person per day. Although,it is not clear what quantity is actually intake, it will bediscussed later with reference to design potable supplyvolumes.Water usage patterns and preferencesMeter readings for the period February to June 2003showed the daily per capita household consumption to varybetween 170 to 1,600 L/p/d, with the average being 230 L/p/d and 610 L/p/d for houses A and J respectively. Metersinstalled on various water fixtures in the home enabled thetype of water use to be determined. The high average usageat one house during the summer months of February toJune can be attributed to watering the lawn and the need fortemperature control. This can be estimated at 370 L/p/d fora household size around 6 persons in the period February27 to June 4. Temperature control was reported to beachieved through filling up small 1.5 m x 25cm deepchildren’s pools, often continuously, for up to 8 hoursevery day during the summer. Water was also used bychildren playing in the yard with water, adults pouringwater over themselves or having a shower. The range ofvalues for outdoor and other water uses measured areshown in figure 1. The meters also indicated that potabledemand at the kitchen and laundry taps during winter wasbetween 30-66 L/p/d as shown in Table 1.Discussions with community residents and observationrevealed that selection of a drinking water source bycommunity residents appeared to be opportunistic with theclosest, culturally appropriate source, being used, irrespec-tive of palatability. Water quality preferences (with theexception of bottled water in summer) play little part in thesource of drinking water chosen.DiscussionUsing the winter tap water direct intake, 95% of peoplewould not exceed 2 L/p/d and the current guideline value of0.02 mg/L for Uranium would be acceptable providedindirect intake through food was negligible. However, if allbottled water was substituted by tap water, 25% of peoplewould have a total direct fluid intake exceeding 2 L/p/d.Indirect fluid intake through cooked foods, and summer-Table 1. Comparison of different measurement methods for estimationof total fluid and water intake during winter in litresWhat was measured → Total drinking fluid intake (L) Total drinking fluid intake during activity (L) Tap water drinking intake (L) Bottled water drinking and cooking intake (L) Total potable supply (L) Methodology used → ↓ Survey Hunting trip observationsSurvey 11 litre consumption measurement Kitchen & laundry flow metersMinimum 0.500 0 0 0.275 30 Maximum 3.250 5.250 2.750 3.097 66 Average 1.442 3.138 0.903 1.182 - 75 percentile 2.010 - 1.125 1.753 - 95 percentile 2.775 - 2.075 3.097 - YUEN, HO, ANDA, CLARKSON and DAY161time temperatures would further increase the intake ofuranium through water. In addition, the observationmethod showed some individuals during physical activ-ity in winter to have an estimated direct fluid intake ashigh as 5.25 L/p/d.Conventionally, management of water supplies ofpoor quality was through treatment of the entire watersupply to meet drinking water quality guidelines. Re-verse osmosis has proved problematic in communitiesbecause of maintenance problems, high energy require-ments and the generation of wastewater which is difficultto dispose of. Considering the high level of water con-sumption for non potable uses, treatment for peakdemands of up to 1,600 L/p/d would needlessly treatlarge amounts of water where households would requireat most 30-66 L/p/d for potable uses including drinkingcooking and cleaning dishes in winter months. Oneresponse to addressing this problem is to investigate theuse of culturally appropriate sustainable managementoptions, for instance dual supply systems. Other poten-tially acceptable management options include blendingof high quality water with poor quality water, commu-nity acceptance of risk and maintaining the status quo orthe provision of bottled drinking water. However, thispaper will focus on dual reticulation systems by eithertreatment of a proportion of the water supply or use ofsupplementary sources such as rainwater tanks for pota-ble uses only. In order to design dual supply systems, thetotal volume of potable water to be supplied and whereit should be provided needs to be first considered.The meters installed on the houses in Community 3indicated that between 30-66 L/p/d are used at thekitchen and laundry taps during winter. The upper value, oraround 70 L/p/d could be used as a potable supply guidelinealthough this does not take into account water required atcommunal taps around the community or in the yard forpotable supply. A comparison with another community (Di-vision of State Aboriginal Affairs, 2000), monitored as part ofa separate study, where only kitchen taps are monitored,found the consumption to be substantially lower, at around3-6 L/p/d. This discrepancy can partly be explained by the factthe laundry taps in the other study were not included, howeverCommunity 3 may simply still use more water from these taps.Supply guidelines for cooking and drinking are 20-30 L/p/d(Australian Water Resources Council, 1989), which is lowerthan the metered estimates in Community 3. This high degreeof variability in both intra and inter-community potabledemand would necessitate a conservative approach to betaken in determining the design potable supply.Dual supply systems such as treatment by reverse osmosisor use of rainwater tanks to provide a potable supply wouldneed to supply water at multiple taps within the home andthroughout the community. This is because it is not possibleto supply one tap (eg kitchen) with potable water and ensurenon potable water is not consumed. Those camping outside(the elderly, or those with low incomes), who incidentally arealso less likely to purchase bottled drinks from the shop,would potentially consume a higher dose. Areas of highpotable use are outdoor taps, those at communal areas and thelaundry tap. The problem with supply of potable water at theyard tap is that it has a particularly high demand as it is usedfor garden watering and temperature control. Alternativeways of keeping cool could decrease consumption from theyard tap. However, the problem remains in whether to supplyFigure 1. Average per capita water consumption for individual fixtures in housesA and J over entire monitoring periodnote: Losses for house J includes outdoor tap usage at the second tap due to a faulty meter  050100150200250300350Outside Tap Toilet Shower laundry (hot andcold)losses, kitchen andlaundry taps Average per capita consumption (l/p/d)House A House J YUEN, HO, ANDA, CLARKSON and DAY162potable water at this tap and have a large amount wasted,or provide non potable water and risk increased ingestionof water of marginal quality. As such participatory plan-ning process should be engaged to determine location ofpotable water points and investigate what is an acceptablelevel of risk for the community.ConclusionsThe 95 percentile winter direct tap water intake does notnecessitate a more conservative uranium guideline to beapplied in communities with marginal supplies. However,high intake through cooked foods, high temperatures,physical exertion and reduced access to bottled beverageswould result in a higher than desired dose and necessitatesome intervention. Difficulties in water treatment and thelow proportion of potable consumption naturally lead tothe potential for dual supply systems to minimise theseproblems, although other alternatives such as blendingshould also be investigated. The design of dual supplysystems needs appropriate water points to be located and adesign potable supply to be quantified. The provision ofpotable supply at only the kitchen tap is inappropriate dueto the opportunistic nature of water use with the preferredsource being the most convenient, irrespective of palatabil-ity. As such, dual supply systems would need to supplywater at multiple taps within the home and throughout thecommunity particularly in communal areas. The moni-tored households indicated a high garden usage for yardwatering and body temperature control, which would leadto high wastage of potable water if provided at the outdoortap. As a result participatory planning process should beengaged to determine the location of potable water points,volume of potable supply and the communities desires fortheir water supply system. Further research is required onboth water intake and potable supply volumes for thesummer months to determine the impact of seasonal vari-ability.AcknowledgementsTechnical and financial support was provided by the Powerand Water Corporation in the Northern Territory, Aus-tralia.ReferencesAustralian Water Resources Council (1989) Guidelines forlow cost water supplies for small communities, Austral-ian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.Division of State Aboriginal Affairs (2000) Water MeterReadings for Indulkana, excel spreadsheet, Division ofState Aboriginal Affairs, AdelaideNHMRC and ARMCANZ (1996) Australian DrinkingWater Guidelines, National Health and Medical Re-search Council and Agriculture and Resource Manage-ment Council of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra.EMMA YUEN, GOEN HO, MARTIN ANDA, KATHRYNCLARKSON and DARRYL DAY, Australia

Water usage in Australian indigenous communities

https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/Water_usage_in_Australian_indigenous_communities/9596282/files/17236568.pdf

Water usage in Australian indigenous communities

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Loughborough University Institutional Repository