Page 64 - Water Loss Control

46 Cha pte r F o u r

The gap between system input and billed consumption has closed from 9134.7 ML/
year, to less than half at 3637.7 ML/year. Current system leakage has reduced by 4951
ML/year or 13.56 ML/year.
These impressive results have been achieved by

• Establishment of district metered areas (50% of service connections)
• Establishment of leakage test zones (14% of service connections)
• Pressure management in appropriate zones
• Reservoir maintenance and repairs
• Mains replacement
• Replacement of service connections and water meters
• Asset condition assessment and replacement
• Improved burst response time

The implementation of extensive pressure management activities has led to a sig-
nificant reduction in reported bursts in pressure managed areas.

4.4 The Need for Meaningful Regulations
When looking at the success stories of leakage management on a country by country
base it is evident that the countries where water loss management is succeeding are
those where well-structured and balanced federal or state water loss management regu-
lations are in place. The United States largely lacks such structure; however a lack of
uniform and proactive regulations is not limited to the United States since a similar lack
of recognition of water loss problems exists around the world.
Many areas of the United States have suffered significant periods of drought in the
past 20 years. A severe drought in California from 1987 to 1992 triggered strict customer
demand restrictions, yet very little emphasis was placed on the need for water suppli-
ers to accurately quantify and manage their water losses.
Severe drought in parts of the United States has been a primary reason why cus-
tomer water conservation programs have become well established and backed by regu-
lations and incentives coming from federal and state levels. Many of these programs,
however, would not exist had local, state, or federal regulations failed to be enacted. In
the United States, it is inevitable that meaningful, industry-wide accountability and
loss control improvements will come about as new federal regulations are passed
requiring such. The highly fragmented water regulatory structure in the United States
makes regulatory decisions and structures highly complex; however, federal and state
regulatory authorities should strongly consider the need to begin to formulate a basic
regulatory structure to motivate water suppliers to assess and manage their water losses
in accordance with recognized best management practices. The 1996 Amendments to
the Safe Drinking Water Act are a good example that federal regulations can be applied
to the U.S. drinking water industry. These regulations motivated new programs and
structures that have clearly increased the quality of drinking water across the United
States. Similarly, a regulatory structure for water accountability and loss control is pos-
sible in the United States; but awareness of the issues must be heightened and political
will has to be mustered.