MIKE MULLER: There are no water supply backlogs — just difficult decisions

Water flowing in rivers and pipes reflects what is happening in the country and offers valuable insights into some of our larger challenges.

Take the “water supply backlog”, which continues to exercise politicians and citizens alike. The backlog has long been dealt with; the challenge now is to keep pace with growing demand.

At last month’s Water Summit, co-operative governance minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, whose department is responsible for overseeing municipalities, told delegates that one in 10 South Africans, 6-million people, do not have access to infrastructure that can provide an adequate water supply.

In 1994, SA certainly did have a backlog in access to decent services. This was a legacy of almost 50 years of apartheid and the century-plus of colonial rule that preceded it, which alienated many black communities from places that could support their lives and livelihoods. Access to water was part of this history. As the Reconstruction & Development Programme reported, 12-million of SA’s (then) population of 36-million did not have access to clean drinking water.

At the beginning of 2022, aside from the 6-million people who do not have access to adequate supply infrastructure, many millions more have the infrastructure but it is not providing a reliable supply of safe water — the exact number depends on how you define “reliable” and “safe”. But the backlog that the democratic government inherited has long been addressed.

SA’s population has grown to about 60-million. If 6-million do not have access to adequate supply infrastructure, this means infrastructure has been provided to supply an astonishing 30-million since 1994 — 6-million from the “old backlog” plus 24-million “new” people. That 54-million are now reached by water supply infrastructure is a remarkable achievement. It is more than double the 24-million who were served in 1994.

Those figures put the concept of the “backlog” in its correct perspective. But they do not necessarily help guide our response to the challenges that have now emerged. Given the speed at which supply infrastructure and institutions were built, on often weak foundations, it should come as no surprise that pumps are creaking, pipes leaking and municipalities failing.

The first challenge is that the population grew far faster than expected and the flow of water has not kept up. This is not because of climate change — as water & sanitation minister Senzo Mchunu pointedly reminded the summit, the dams are full but the taps are dry. Indeed, SA uses about 35% of the average annual flow in its rivers and groundwater.

The 2012 National Development Plan assumed that SA’s population would reach 58,5-million after 2030. But that projection was made by Stats SA at the peak of the HIV/Aids epidemic. Mortality was high and the population was growing slowly. The success of programmes that turned HIV/Aids into a manageable disease can be measured by the subsequent rebound in population growth: by 2019 the population already exceeded the numbers expected for 2030.

The second challenge is that the implications of this welcome shift were not addressed. While the second National Planning Commissions’ 2020 review of the NDP acknowledged that population growth had been faster than expected, it did not take the next step and warn that SA should plan for at least 6-million more people than initially expected.

Those extra millions need more housing and services, as well as education and employment opportunities, than had been planned for. This shows the dangers of planning by looking backwards rather than forward. The point of identifying such future challenges is to develop appropriate responses. And this is where SA still does not have a convincing strategy.

Water service providers must plan for the number of people they will have to serve in future. The needs of tomorrow should guide the kind of services that are provided today. Whether this involves developing costly new water sources or improving the management of what we already have, more money and skills will be needed.

With more than 50% of South Africans living in poverty and unable to pay for water unless they go without food, where will the funding come from to build and operate water services? The constitution demands — and the government accepts — that municipalities must receive an equitable share of public revenue to enable basic services to be provided. But what are those basic services? How much can be afforded without making unwanted cuts elsewhere? Who decides and how?

The water minister is required by the Water Services Act of 1997 to set norms and standards to provide the legal basis for such decisions. But they cannot be set arbitrarily or aspirationally. So, while Mchunu would like to see a tap and flush toilet in every household yard (if not yet inside each house), he cannot set that as a standard unless he can show how it would be paid for.

This was last done in 2001 — the revised draft norms and standards, a confused mix of detailed policy statements and aspirational goals published in 2017, has not been promulgated. Given its financial implications, formal National Treasury concurrence is required. This was not forthcoming since the National Water & Sanitation Master Plan’ developed by then-minister Nomvula Mokonyane and tabled by successor Lindiwe Sisulu was, by its own admission, not feasible. A conservative estimate is that it would cost R900bn to build the infrastructure, at least R330bn more than what’s available. Where the funds to operate the many proposed new systems would come from was not explained.

Even more challenging, on standards of service the minister needs the agreement not just of the Treasury and cabinet colleagues but of the SA Local Government Association as organised local government, and the communities concerned. Consultation on norms and standards for basic services is always a tense affair. Loud urban residents demand more water and, in effect, more money; rural residents are often divided between those lucky enough to have running taps and can take as much as they want (often without paying) and those whose taps are dry because of their neighbours’ undisciplined water use.

Providing a tap in each household has, correctly, long been the goal.  But households with their own taps typically use at least twice as much water as those who share taps and have to carry water. So municipalities have to meter the consumption of each household and bill them for water used in excess of what is still the “basic service” of 6,000 litres per household per month. If they don’t, experience shows consumption will increase beyond the capacity of the systems to supply. Even if they meter and bill, payments are often not collected.

South Africans have to agree how much funding will be available to support what level of basic services, and then fix the institutions responsible so they can meet at least the agreed basic service standards. That will be a long road. But the first step is that critical discussion about what levels of basic service SA can afford and whether and where we have the competences to provide them. Meanwhile, water runs in the rivers, waiting to be used.

• Muller, a former national planning commissioner and director-general of water affairs, is a visiting adjunct professor at the Wits School of Governance.