I share the concerns of my colleague, Sylvester Philip, MBE in his commentary in this newspaper two weeks ago, about the trials of the Water and Sewerage Company (WASCO). It’s unacceptable to me, as I believe it is to all water consumers in Saint Lucia, that successive governments have failed to address WASCO’s long-standing operational and financial woes, in a comprehensive and sustainable manner.
It seems to me WASCO been given a basket to carry water, because at no time in its 60-year history, spanning its days as the Central Water Authority (1964-1984), as the Water and Sewerage Authority (1984-1999), and as WASCO since 1999, has it received the requisite resources and support it needs, to give its 62,000 consumers, a regular supply of potable water. The nickel and diming approach that successive governments have adopted towards WASCO, has placed it in a state of perpetual crisis. Each crisis, like the last, causes WASCO and the Government of Saint Lucia to spent precious money—conceivably hundreds of thousands of dollars–to truck water to affected communities. This is on top of money that WASCO loses from shutting down the system.
If “water is life,” then WASCO would have been put in decent enough shape to respond to the rising demand for water, across our country. Instead, it’s been locked in a decades-long, impossible mission, to capture water from the same, limited, unprotected, water catchments, impound it in a heavily silted dam, treat it and then pump it into homes and businesses, many at high elevations, using geriatric pipes that can’t handle the pressure. WASCO’s workers too, are feeling the pressure from this scenario. Morale is perennially low. With its unflattering image, it’s a wonder WASCO has been able to retain and/or attract new staff. None of this is to say that WASCO has not received any financial support from the Government. Rather, my point is that it this support has not been adequate, predictable, and sustained.
All things considered—including some well-known and not so well-known facts about WASCO’s corporate existence, I assert that WASCO must be credited for providing, even the inadequate and unsatisfactory level of service we often complain about. It cannot be said that water provision has not dramatically improved since the 1960s, when many of our people had no choice but to risk getting Bilharzia from snail-infested rivers. After three decades, I can still remember the malodour from the chemicals and drugs that were stored at the former Bilharzia hospital at Morne Fortune–which later became the headquarters of the Caribbean Environmental Health Institute (CEHI)—and the frequent visits I and my siblings had to make to a public standpipe at the corner of Grass and Coral Streets. Now, standpipes are virtually gone, and most consumers receive water in their homes. There was a time when the quality of the water was so poor, consumers were routinely advised to boil it, before drinking. Now, generally, the water is safe enough to be consumed straight from a tap.
This transformation took considerable time, toil, and money. New intakes had to be identified. All 37 watersheds had to be protected from deforestation. Here, the Forestry Department headed by Gabriel “Coco” Charles played an invaluable role. New transmission lines had to be laid, and new treatment plants and storage tanks built. This was a personal mission of Sir John Compton, who spent many weekends participating in community self-help, water projects around the country. A twinning arrangement with Wessex Water Authority of the UK, helped to provide critical and timely, technical, and managerial support to WASCO. The Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) was a primary source of grant and loan financing for this steady expansion programme, supplemented by the British Development Division (BDD), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the World Bank. However, this funding has never been adequate and/or sustained. The fact that WASCO has not had a comprehensive master plan has not helped.
The commissioning of the Sir John Compton Dam and Millet Reservoir ((JCDMR) through the Water Supply Project (WSP) circa 1996, was a major addition to the water supply network. It’s still a mystery to me how Sir John was able to convince the Canadian Government to contribute nearly EC$52 million towards this project, which remains the largest single grant made by Canada for a project in the Caribbean. His personal friendship with the late Pierre Trudeau –former PM of Canada and father of current PM, Justin Trudeau–must have helped. Still, this funding had to be augmented by approximately EC$11 million from local revenue and a CDB loan, to cover certain costs, including the construction of a 1600-metre access road to the dam site, and the relocation of 42 households from the dam’s catchment area. The passage of Tropical Storm Debbie in 1994, set the project back in terms and time and money.
It was always known that if the JCDMR was to operate optimally and sustainably, significant sums of money would be needed to fund preventative maintenance, notably desilting and reafforestation of the watershed, spanning approximately 60 acres. When the JCDMR project was appraised by funders, it was estimated it would increase WASCO’s operating costs by about EC$$2.5 million per 1,000 gallons of water. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis showed that a 10% increase in project costs (excluding the dam) would require WASCO to raise tariff rates by an additional 5% in 1991, 1992 and 1993 respectively. Despite clear evidence that WASCO’s revenue cannot cover its operational costs, at no point during the past 25 years has the water tariff been set remotely close to reflecting the true value of water. The JCDMR has never achieved its 700-million-gallon capacity, and the latest dredging project which was meant to recover some of this lost capacity, has been mired in political and administrative intrigue and subterfuge, including the bizarre firing of the entire Board and the CEO of the NURC. The T.R Theobalds Treatment plant was designed to meet projected demand through to 2025. Its operational status after this, is not clear. However, it is reasonable to conclude, that the higher the silt content in raw water leaving the dam, the longer it will take to be adequately treated. If demand for water increases, as projected, and other factors remain constant, consumers will continue to experience untimely disruptions in the water supply.
Perhaps the strongest indicator of WASCO’s continuing strife is that 40% of the water it produces is lost. I can’t say if this metric of “unaccounted-for water” was determined through a water audit, which is the most effective known method. However, it would be true to say that most water utilities have this problem. In most cases, it is caused by a breakdown in the structure of pipes and/or storage tanks, which is in turn caused by rust, corrosion, and aggressive soils. Because most of WASCO’s transmission system is underground, leaking pipes can go unnoticed for many months, if not years. Recently, WASCO engineers acknowledged it’s not cost-effective to repair one minor leak on a line, and that sometimes it waits for a cluster of leaks to occur on a segment of a line, before it makes repairs. Still, it means that 40 cents out of every dollar WASCO spends to produce potable water, is not recovered.
I agree with those who argue that water should be treated as a “social good” and not as an “economic good.” But that does not mean the true cost of water should be disregarded. Rather, it should force governments for whom water is a “social good” to recognize that if WASCO is to satisfy the needs and expectations of a rapidly expanding, customer base, it must be GUARANTEED adequate, predictable, and sustained financial support. Instructively, the Government had assured the funders of the WSP, that by December 1991, a mechanism would have been established to allow WASCO to set tariffs to cover its cash needs, to fund investment and to obtain a reasonable rate of return on its investment, a la LUCELEC. This has not happened, leading to the situation in which WASCO finds itself today.
Sewerage Disposal
While WASCO’s sewerage collection and disposal mandate is not the focus of this commentary, it is worth noting that significant challenges also abound in this area. Tellingly, of WASCO 62,000 water customers, only 4,300 are also its sewerage customers. Aside from the underutilized, sewerage treatment facility (stabilisation pond) at Bella Rosa, serving the town of Gros-Islet and environs, the other parts of the island’s sewerage system have remained largely untouched. Raw effluent from the Castries area is still being dumped into the sea. In large swathes of the island, the predominant modes of sewerage disposal are septic tanks, dry-pit latrines, and “nightsoil” collection and disposal. In the mid-1990s, much work was done by French engineers on the design of an expanded and modernized sewerage collection, TREATMENT, and disposal system, linking homes in the dormitory areas of Castries. Even then, the estimated cost of this project was astronomical. But it must be done. Indeed, it can be done on a phased basis.
Responding to Climate Change
Global Climate Change (GCC) offers a potent reason why WASCO’s status quo cannot be allowed to continue. A 2022 Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (CRVA) of Saint Lucia’s water sector identified several extreme climate risks to WASCO’s viability, including: increased turbidity of the raw water supply during and after heavy rains; drought; blocked intakes caused by increased sedimentation and landslides; pipeline damage; damage to pumping and treatment stations; power supply interruptions; damage to homes of WASCO’s staff, and loss of road access to water infrastructure. Readers would be aware of most of these impacts. The real concern is that they will become the new norm, because of climate change.
To help build its resilience to climate change, in 2023, WASCO commissioned a financing and investment strategy anchored in a suite of projects, which are being appraised by the CDB and by the Green Climate Fund (GCF) which is financing similar projects in at least three Caribbean countries. I would not be surprised if one or more of these entities insist on an increase in the water tariff, as a condition of approval of these projects. As the sole owner of WASCO, the Government has been guaranteeing WASCO’s debt. It is therefore in Government’s interest, to create a financially resilient WASCO that can honour its debts and reinvest in the development of the water sector to meet the growing demand for water.
A Way Forward
Even with its funding limitations, there are steps WASCO can and must take to build its resilience to climate change. For starters, it must treat its every decision and action as an opportunity to gradually, climate-proof its systems and operations. Among other things, it might explore the possibility of generating hydropower from the JCDMR. Additionally, it can train staff in its planning and engineering departments to better assess the risks and consequences of extreme weather events caused by climate change. However, it’s not WASCO alone that must prepare for climate change. Every citizen, business and industry must do the same. The DCA should require every new developer/home builder to include water cisterns with a least a week’s supply of water. Governments should incentivise the use of water storage, water saving and water reuse devices and consider banning the importation of water-wasting devices. Farmers should be encouraged to shift to drought-resistant crops and to use precision irrigation systems. Water conservation should be taught in schools. The Fire Service should develop, practice, and regularly update management plans to reduce fire risk to watersheds. Finally, recalling that vandals are targeting water infrastructure, the Government should amend the Criminal Code, to permit the strictest fines to be imposed on people who destroy water infrastructure.
It’s high time for WASCO to be given a long lease on life, so it can properly serve its customers. The status quo is unacceptable. And here, I must feel confident, that as Lead Prime Minister for climate change and sustainable development in CARICOM’s Cabinet, PM Pierre will step in to stop WASCO from being seen by its consumers as a “basket case.”