Implications of SONA on Department; with Deputy Ministers

Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation

23 February 2021
Chairperson: Ms R Semenya (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Implications of SONA: Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation​ 

President Cyril Ramaphosa: 2021 State of the Nation Address (SONA)

In this virtual meeting, the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements, Water, and Sanitation (National Assembly) was briefed by the Departments of Human Settlements and Water and Sanitation on their response to the State of the Nation Address (SONA), with support from the Deputy Ministers.

The Department of Human Settlements’ (DHS’s) response stemmed from the announcement of the Reconstruction and Recovery Plan. The focus was on achieving spatial transformation in priority development areas, adequate housing, and improved quality of living. The DHS had launched two major human settlements projects that would provide homes to almost 68 000 households in the Gauteng province, in Lanseria and Mooikloof. The Lanseria ‘smart city’ would become South Africa’s first smart city, and would provide homes for between 350 000 to 500 000 people within the next decade.136 areas had been identified throughout the country as priority development areas, and were in various stages of development or planning.

The Department of Water and Sanitation’s (DWS’s) response focused on their water infrastructure projects, such as the Umkhomazi Water Project and the Mokolo Crocodile River (West) Water Augmentation Project Phase 2A.  The Department also reported on the water sector reforms, which included a 90-day turnaround time for the finalisation of water use licences; a revival of the Blue and Green Drop water quality programmes; the finalisation and implementation of the revised raw water pricing policy, and the establishment of the National Water Resource Infrastructure Agency.

The Committee raised questions and expressed concerns over the filling of vacancies of key personnel in the Departments; the timelines of the projects as a response to SONA; the disestablishment of the Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA); challenges in the implementation of the Umkhomazi Water Project phase 1; the reason for the Blue and Green Drop programmes being previously discontinued; the impact of the National Water Resource Infrastructure Agency on water resources and service delivery across the country; the abandonment of the South African National Water Resources Infrastructure Agency Limited Bill; the expected start of the Berg-River Voëlvlei Augmentation Scheme; the insufficient water availability in Polokwane; the achievement of  DHS transformation goals with the Mooikloof development; equitable access to water for the vulnerable communities; the reintroduction of the Blue and Green Scorpion units; the use of climate-smart irrigation strategies; and the implementation of procurement targets.

Meeting report

The Chairperson said that President Cyril Ramaphosa had addressed Parliament on the programme that government would take for this financial year. The Committee had invited the Department to brief it on its response to the State of the Nation Address (SONA). The Department was welcomed.

Ms Pam Tshwete and Mr David Mahlobo, Deputy Ministers of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation, were present in the meeting and would be allowed to make introductory remarks, and then their Departments’ presentations could begin. The Department of Human Settlements (DHS) would start.  

The Committee had been requested to report to Parliament regarding the number that had been agreed under the regulations, therefore the meetings would start at 9h30 for Members that have to travel to Parliament soon. As it had been indicated in the programme, if Members were expected to go to Parliament the meetings would start at 9:30 again. Friday’s meeting would start at 9:30 and she was imploring officials to not cause any confusion by sticking to 9:00.

Deputy Minister Tshwete was asked for her introductory remarks.

Department of Human Settlements

Deputy Minister’s overview

Deputy Minister Tshwete said the DHS was going to brief the Committee on the implications of SONA for the Human Settlements sector. Departments were expected to provide the presidency with input for consideration to the SONA, and as such, the DHS had responded that it would be involved in two major human settlement projects of the economic reconstruction and recovery plan which were expected to benefit 68 000 households in Gauteng -- the Lanseria Smart City and the Mooikloof Development. The Lanseria Smart City would become South Africa’s first smart city, and would provide homes for between 350 000 to 500 000 people within the next few years.

These projects underpinned the government’s intention to undo the legacy of apartheid’s spatial planning by providing adequate housing, improving the quality of living standards, and facilitating security of tenure for households. The presentation was long and spoke to the highlights. There were many stakeholders for the smart city development -- the national Department of Human Settlements and the Housing Development Agency (HDA) had played a role over the years of planning and conceptualisation the smart city development and investing in housing projects and programmes which would be detailed by the Department.

The Committee would recall that in May 2020, the Minister had declared 136 spaces for human settlement development to ensure redress, and the DHS had hardened up on spatial planning and revitalising towns and cities.

To provide some context, the priority development areas serve 70% of the population in 67 local municipalities, eight metros and 38 districts, and some of these areas fall within the Lanseria smart city. The DHS would be integrating projects in these areas for greater impact.

The priority development areas were in the special economic zones, and three of these were in close proximity. This meant that human settlements projects, programmes and related activities would form part of the President’s vision for a South Africa that attracts investment and promotes national economic growth.

The DHS provides support to 21 municipalities in seven provinces that were mining towns and had traditionally relied on the single economic sector of mining. Without getting into the details, as from the last meeting, the DHS had also undertaken to upgrade 1 500 informal settlements to phase 3 of the National Housing Code, along with the provision of serviced sites for the beneficiaries. Provinces that would benefit from this upgrade include the Western Cape, the Free State, Gauteng, the Eastern Cape, and Kwa-Zulu Natal. There were currently more than 8 000 projects that were funded through the human settlements’ development grant. These projects were expected to yield 400 000 housing opportunities.

She knew that the Department must provide assistance with the issue of title deeds. They were fully aware of areas that need to be addressed -- the title deeds backlog which was being delayed by the townships being established. They were talking to provinces, and the current road show she was currently doing, because of the District Development Model (DDM), includes the municipalities where they were sure that when the title deed backlog was dealt with, they would be able to talk to the municipalities directly in terms of their excuses regarding town establishments. Last week, there was a meeting with Gauteng and they talked about the backlog. These provinces were given a grant for restoration and title deeds, and the provinces were not using this money. This would require an intergovernmental approach. It was important to mention that when they strived to achieve this commitment, they needed to remain mindful of the adjustment to the budget and project timeframes caused by COVID-19.

She handed over to the Director-General.

DHS response to SONA

Mr Mbulelo Tshangana, Director General, DHS, said that the Deputy Minister had given a good summary, but to contextualise it again, part of what the DHS was trying to do was to address apartheid’s spatial planning, so the presentation touched on the priority human settlements and housing development areas. These were the areas where it wanted to create reparation and coordination in the greater human settlements of what others would call post-apartheid settlements, or cities.

Dr Zoleka Sokopo, Acting Deputy Director General (ADDG): Human Settlement Delivery Frameworks, DHS, said that the presentation would focus on the SONA statement on human settlements and the progress made thus far.

The SONA statement referred to the DHS’s contribution to post-apartheid cities and breaking the legacy of apartheid’s spatial development.

DHS’s response:

  • Ensured the inclusion of areas of deprivation in the Lanseria Masterplan. Initially, it was just Lanseria’s central business district (CBD), but the informal settlements were now included.  It was in various stages of planning.
  • This would unlock infrastructure investment from different spheres of government and the private sector for the upgrading of informal settlements.
  • Through the housing construction, jobs would be created, particularly for women, youth and military veterans.
  • In total, over 136 spaces had been identified for development, and 18 strategic integrated projects that would provide affordable rental housing had been gazetted. 

Priorities of the human settlements sector were

  • Spatial transformation through investment in 136 priority development areas that were declared in 2020.
  • The spatial transformation had not been as successful, and spaces had to be identified for proper development.
  • The intention was to upgrade 1500 informal settlements to phase 3 of the National Housing Code, providing 642 000 serviced sites and housing units within a choice of tenure options and typologies for a range of qualifying households, create household wealth, and promote land redistribution through a titling programme targeting the registration of 1 193 222 title deeds, and to invest in the public realm within settlements and in neighbourhood infrastructure.
  • The DHS would continue to direct investments in the identified priority development spaces.
  • Some of the projects had already begun.
  • It wanted to increase the participation of low-and middle-income households in the residential real estate market.

The DHS wanted to achieve Integration, spatial targeting, coordination and alignment with the three spheres of government and government departments, and stakeholder participation.

[See slide 8 for the distribution of the 136 areas]

Dr Sokopo referred to the expected impact of the 136 Priority Human Settlements and Housing Development Areas (PHSHDAs), and said these spaces already had running projects. The DHS was still in various stages of planning and development. There were 1 937 informal settlements with 2 226 318 households that this project would be able to address. There would also be a focus on distressed mining towns. The location of the special economic zones was intended to ensure that people were not located far from job opportunities.

Delays in development had been caused by the approval processes, such as township establishment, the availability of bulk infrastructure, stakeholder participation and objections from affected stakeholders. The Department was trying to address these delays.

Progress on Gauteng developments

Lanseria

Dr Sokopo presented the greater Lanseria masterplan to the Committee, and said the plan includes all the deprived areas on the map. It addressed the principles of spatial justice, spatial sustainability, spatial resilience, efficiency, and good governance, which were used to guide spatial planning and would later guide land use management and land development. Locating the priority human settlements and housing development within the Lanseria Airport Development allowed the DHS to address spatial planning imperatives. The project was within the Spatial Development Framework of the City of Johannesburg and was in line with the draft National Spatial Development Framework. The DHS wanted to ensure that the imbalances of the past were addressed.

The project planning phase had involved more than housing; the project was expected to address the development of commercial, business, industrial, airport expansion, and residential properties. Various land uses and analyses had been done, and the approval processes were complete. He identified the priority development areas where the focus would be on residential development.

Mooikloof

Mooikloof was a high income area of Pretoria. The project was initiated by Baldwin Properties, but there was a partnership with national departments. The main benefit of this project was affordable housing.

Progress thus far was that applications for township establishment had been submitted. It was expected that the township would be proclaimed by March, and the project itself would provide over 16 000 units. However, once the project was complete, the yield could be close to 50 000. There were still issues concerning bulk infrastructure and transport

The President had also announced that similar human settlement projects were planned in other provinces. The expected impact of the 136 priority developments includes improving existing areas for smart cities, renewal, redevelopment and consolidation.

Dr Sokopo presented a series of slides showing where the priority areas and housing development areas were in all of the provinces. A similar approach to Lanseria and Mooikloof had been adopted around the country. Areas were in different stages of development. The DHS would be guided by area development plans.

Deputy Minister Tshwete said that in the maps that was shown, the green dots were close to big cities. This meant that people were migrating to big cities to look for jobs, and what was clear from the areas highlighted, was that the issues were not new.

DWS response to SONA

Deputy Minister’s overview

Deputy Minister Mahlobo said several issues had been raised by the President. These included the work to be done in supporting local government within the parameters of the DDM, and how it would be ensured that local government was supported, especially with access to basic services like water and basic sanitation, at the same time intervening to mitigate the capacity constraints faced by municipalities.

The President had also discussed the main loadstar, which was the DWS’s blueprint referred to as the ‘economic reconstruction and recovery plan’ for South Africa, to reaffirm the centrality of network industries to drive the economy plan. At the centre of the plan was economic infrastructure, and water was one of the most important economic infrastructure issues.

For the DWS, there were many infrastructure projects, and the President had referred to two projects where the DWS could proceed with implementation, especially in Kwa-Zulu Natal (KZN). These were the Umkhomazi Water Project and the Mokolo Crocodile River (West) Water Augmentation Project Phase 2A. The presentation would detail this. The DWS had also taken the liberty of indicating other major infrastructure projects and their current status, and what it had to do in support of economic development and growth, including the creation of jobs as part of the network industries.

The President had also raised certain issues involving structural reform, or some of the impediments to deal with, if the economy went through bad times. One of the issues for the DWS was the question of the importance of the water use licence. This was so that there could be ease of doing business, and a licence would not take much longer so that people wanting to invest would not be delayed. Equally, the issuing of licences could support transformation goals, especially considering the skewed water allocation, using it as a tool to bring in previously disadvantaged people.

On reform, which was also part of Operation Vulindlela, the President was worried about the issue of water quality -- that although the country might not run out of water; the water that was available may not be ‘fit for use.’ Therefore, the DWS was advised to revive the Blue and Green Drop programmes. The Blue Drop programme was about potable water having to be within certain standards. The Green Drop programme was about the discharge of water and its cleanliness.

Another issue was water pricing. The President had said that the DWS must be able to conclude a revised water pricing strategy, including the establishment of an independent economic regulator in the same mode as the energy sector. This was a matter that had been prioritised, including the DWS working with Treasury, the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), and the South African Local Government Association (SALGA).

The last issue under reforms was that the President had reintroduced a matter from the fourth administration. This was the re-establishment of the National Water Resource Infrastructure Agency that would be used in combining the Trans-Calendon Tunnel Authority (TCTA), the infrastructure branch of the DWS, and certain assets. The aim was to use this asset base and go to the market and build more strategic infrastructure required for the economy.

Other cross-cutting issues might not have been addressed, but the DWS had made its contribution to fighting crime and corruption, and the issues of a developmental state. The President was able to speak to some of the issues and place water at the centre of the work to be done if the economy was to recover.

DWS infrastructure and reforms

Ms Deborah Mochothli, Director General, DWS, said that water quality was required to be ‘fit for use,’ and that would be discussed. The DWS’s infrastructure projects, over and above delivering water, created employment whether temporarily or long term. The DWS was also participating in structural economic reform through Vulindela.

The DWS had adopted and embraced the ‘District Development Model’ (DDM) as one of its implementing mechanisms. The DWS seeks to bring all spheres of government together and encourage cooperation, because water was a ‘cross-cutting element of our lives.’

The DDM was very much in line with the DWS’s sector plan, and in various ways, it went beyond the sector as it allowed the contribution of various other sectors, such as the private sector. The pronouncement by the President was already embedded and firmly anchored in the DWS programmes.

The DWS would be presenting on water infrastructure which was part of programme 3 of the DWS. In the SONA, the President mentioned projects that were in the planning stage and those that were in implementation.

The presentation would also touch on the reforms which were part of programme 4.  The Deputy Director Generals would be asked to present their roles. Although the President mentioned a few, the DWS had water services and water resource projects that were currently under way. These were worth mentioning because of the DWS’s contribution to other matters, which were cross-cutting issues, one of which was job creation.

Infrastructure projects

Mr Moloko Matlala, Deputy Director-General: Water Information Management, DWS, said he would continue the presentation, starting on the Umkhomazi Water Project – Phase 1.

This was one of the projects the President had singled out in the SONA. This was in KZN, and had passed several phases in the DWS’s planning cycle, and was well described in terms of how much water they were supposed to get out of the project. They were looking at 215 million m³/a at 99% assurance. This was also a project where progress could be reported. By 2028, ‘all the boxes could be ticked.’

The second project was the Mokolo Crocodile River Water Augmentation Project Phase 2A. While these were the projects announced by the President, the DWS was not focusing on Kwa-Zulu Natal and Limpopo. The DWS had ensured that its projects were spread throughout the country. The Mokolo Crocodile River was in Limpopo, and the project was meant to address the social and economic aspects of the economy. The DWS was looking at 2025 for commissioning this project.

It was special because it did not involve only the Limpopo province. The Committee would know that most of the return flowed from the Vaal system and goes to the Upper Crocodile in the North West Province. The DWS wanted to convey and reuse the final catchment and put it to good use, instead of disposing of it through our water borders.

Mr Matlala reported on construction progress and identified specific projects that were already in the pipeline. These were spread across the country and were in various stages of development. All of them had been costed.

Mr Leonardo Manus, Chief Director: Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance, DWS took over the presentation. He said the other strategic infrastructure projects listed on slide 12 of the presentation had been shown at the sustainable infrastructure development symposium launched in June 2020 by the President. Unfortunately, there was not adequate funding in the fiscus to initiate all the projects all at once. The intention was to get innovative funding methods going to see how the implementation of these projects could be fast-tracked. It was believed that if these projects were initiated, the economy would be stimulated, and water security assured. These proects included:

  • Berg-River. This was not to build a new dam but to abstract water that would usually flow into the ocean and store it in the Voëlvlei Dam.
  • Lesotho Highlands Phase 2. This was the most famous project of all, and would cost R32.6 billion. This was to bring in an additional dam.
  • Extend the treatment capacity at Rustfontein water treatment works, to increase water security, supply and capacity for Mangaung. This was Bloem Water initiated project. It would cost R500 million.
  • Phase 2 of the Olifants River water resources development project (ORWRDP 2). This was a project in Limpopo, and the Sekhukhune, Polokwane and Mogalakwena areas would benefit from this through domestic use. A large component of this scheme was to bring water from the Steelpoort catchment in the Limpopo province to where the De Hoop and Boeshilo dams were located, to create one integrated system to ensure that the mining sector was sustained and the community was uplifted. The DWS was working with the commercial sector and the TCTA to come up with a solution to fast track this project.
  • Rehabilitation of the Vaalharts Taung irrigation scheme. This was to enhance water security for food production and domestic supply in Magareng. The Vaalharts Taung scheme was in place but it needed upgrading because it had reached the end of its life. The water association was using the two dry periods per annum to ensure that the water supply was still secure. However, some significant upgrades were required not just to maintain the current situation, but to increase the water supply to provide up and coming farmers with a resource as they got land in the area.
  • OrangeRiet Canal increase of bulk raw water supply. An upgrade of this scheme would ensure that additional water could be conveyed through to Rooigrond. This was a development for black farmers in the Free State area, and would cost R450 million.
  • Groot Letaba River Water Development Project: Nwamitwa Dam. This project was ready for implementation, but the lack of offtake potential was making this difficult to implement. This was to provide for the ecological water reserve, and domestic and irrigation water requirements in the Greater Letaba area of Limpopo.
  • Mzimvubu Water Project. This entailed the construction of two multi-purpose dams -- the Ntabelanga and Lalini Dams -- a hydropower station, a water treatment plant, primary and secondary water distribution systems with reservoirs, and ancillary infrastructure. National Treasury had requested a decrease in the amount to R5 billion. This was almost complete to go back to Treasury for concurrence.
  • Vaal Gamagara Water Project. This was to assure supply to the various mines, municipalities, agricultural sector and Transnet in the Northern Cape area.

Reforms in the water sector

Ms Thoko Sigwaza, Chief Director: Institutional oversight, DWS, said she would continue with water sector reforms.

It had already been indicated that economic reforms were required to address social and economic challenges in the sector so that one could do business with minimum regulations, as these were a challenge for the sector. Because of the critical nature of these issues, the President and Treasury had introduced ‘Operation Vulindlela’ to take these reforms forward.

The Department had to ensure that water licence applications were finalised within 90 days. In 2014, it had taken a decision to have the business process reduced from 300 days to 90 days. Before the President announced the 90-day limit, the DWS was starting to migrate from 300 to 90 days. It had worked on smoothing the business processes to ensure that the processes were streamlined from local to national level. It had also aimed to build its capacity to ensure that it delivered within 90 days.

The Department had reconfigured the Electronic Water Use Licence Application and Authorisation System (E-WULAAS), the online application portal, to make online applications easier. It was also assisting previously disadvantaged people and those who could not make applications online.

Between now and the end of March, the DWS was building capacity within regions, engaging with Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs) and informing citizens at the local level so that they know where to go and how to do their applications. The new turnaround time would formally begin on 1 April. As part of Operation Vulindlela, the DWS was working with the Government Technical Advisory Centre (GTAC) to assist with the developments and supporting the new turnaround time.

The challenges faced by the Department included:

  • Inadequate information or poor-quality reports from applicants. This delayed the applications. The DWS had improved by assisting applicants with a list of information to submit. A table of contents for the technical reports would be given to applicants. Studies and reports were to be conducted and written by people registered with professional bodies.
  • Inadequate human capacity in the Department. The Department was currently recruiting additional officials for the processing of water use licence applications.
  • Historically disadvantaged individuals lacked the resources to submit applications online. The Department was providing its resources to assist these individuals with the application process.

Regarding the 90-day turnaround time to finalise water use licences, the DWS believes that it could do better. For example, in the agriculture and forestry sector, the DWS believes it would be able to take 70 days to produce the water use licence. However, it still wants to ensure that it is thorough in assessing the applications.

The DWS was also working through Operation Vulindlela to revive the Green Drop and Blue Drop programmes to strengthen water quality monitoring, to finalise and implement the revised raw water pricing strategy, and to accelerate the establishment of a national water resources infrastructure agency.

In the past, the Committee had emphasised the importance of the Blue and Green Drop Programmes. It was an incentive-based regulatory system that helped the DWS to provide confidence to the country on the quality of the water produced across the board, and the entire water value chain.

The last Green Drop Report was published in 2013, while the Blue Drop Report was published in 2014. The DWS would like to improve and produce these reports bi-annually. A lack of budget had hampered the continuation of the programme, and the Committee was aware of the capacity problems. The DWS was working on reviving the programmes. The Committee could expect that full Green Drop assessments to be undertaken in 2021/22 and full Blue Drop assessments would be done in 2022/23.

The revised water pricing strategy was gazetted for public consultation in November 2015. Since then, there had been many unresolved issues. Upon request for concurrence, National Treasury had raised several issues which the DWS was still in the process of addressing. Most of the concerns had been addressed and updated into the revised pricing strategy.

The DWS was working with the Water Research Commission, which would be assisting with further research. It hoped that by end of November, the revised pricing strategy would be finalised. The second round of the public consultation process would still take place during 2021/22. The Department was working in collaboration with the Operation Vulindlela support team in the National Treasury to fast-track the finalisation of the pricing strategy as a priority.

The Committee was aware that establishment of a national water resource infrastructure agency had been mooted a long time ago and the DWS had been encouraged to move forward with it. The national infrastructure investment, implementation, operations and maintenance were fragmented between the DWS, the TCTA and water user associations.

The aim was to establish an agency that could achieve the eventual financial viability of the agency, albeit with continued fiscal transfers for social projects, and ensuring that strategic asset management was limited and used. There was a need to strengthen existing construction capacity within the DWS, and also to ensure that existing infrastructure was leveraged so that it did not burden the fiscus. The aim was to ensure that the entire water value chain was sustained and was not compromised by non-payment by many users, or inconsistent credit control responses.

The DWS was using the proposed work-streams to support the implementation of the agency, but still needed to finalise a business case to send to Treasury, and resolve human resources, communications, financial and legal issues. This would happen over the next three years -- the main issue was that the business case had to be submitted to Treasury for approval.

Deputy Minister Mahlobo said the teams were hard at work on the licensing improvements, and the discussions with Treasury were being prioritised.

Discussion

The Chairperson said she was worried that the DWS presentation had not including the finalisation of the appointment of key personnel. The Acting Auditor-General (AG) had raised a concern that in previous years, the Department had many acting Director Generals and Chief Financial Officers (CFOs). This was a critical matter, and was not referred to in the presentation. The President had spoken about the capacity of the state to deliver on the annual plans, and because this issue was not covered the Committee would like to interact with the Department and get a progress report, as well as how it was dealing with crime and corruption.

Mr R Mashego (ANC) wanted to emphasise the point the Chairperson made on recruitment in the DWS. There was instability in both Departments by not appointing people to fill positions. Many South Africans were unemployed, hac lost jobs, and some positions could contribute to job creation. However, people were being kept in acting positions, and he did not understand this. He did not understand why, for two years, people had not been able to be appointed in vacant positions in the Departments. He understood that positions could not be filled where people were being disciplined and so on, but there were vacant positions that should be filled, such as the position of a Director General (DG). There was no DG currently under investigation in the DWS, so why have no appointment been made?

In both presentations, there should have been a response to the SONA. The presentations had starting dates in 2020 and ended in 2028 and 2030, so how was this relevant as a response to SONA, where there were annual statements? The Committee had been told in phase 2 a matter had been finalised in February 2020 this year and there was a wish to award a contract in October 2021, when the finalisation and technical work had already been completed in February -- why was that?

It had been stated that the TCTA would be disestablished and a new authority would be formed. However, the report says that the TCTA would have started a process in 2019, and the DWS was saying that a contract had been awarded in October 2021 -- but this was February 2021, so how was it that a contract had been awarded? Why had the DWS said this? Even a blind person could see that something was wrong here. The DWS had said that it had already awarded a tender in October 2021; what was the DWS trying to imply about the Committee’s intelligence? And the DWS had said that the contract awarded would start in January 2022.

The change from 300 to 90 days to handle licence applications, and the commitment to be lower than 90 days in some places, and Operation Vulindlela must be appreciated. However, what was the DWS saying? Would the TCTA be disbanded? If so, the Committee must know what was going to happen. Would the 2020/21 timeframe be met? If not, then that meant that the DWS was not responding to the SONA. The Committee was not expecting a ‘basket filled by a shopping list,’ because this was an annual response to the commitment made by the President, informed by the DWS. The Committee expected a programme that addressed that point, and it had to end within a year. Both Departments were not doing that.

The DHS had spoken about the 68 000 houses that would be built in Gauteng in the smart city, which was good because the President had spoken about it, but then the Department’s intention of starting and finalising went way beyond ‘annual.’ He said the Deputy Minister should understand that a report must contain an annual commitment of work, but here there was a multi-year plan.

Ms S Mokgotho (EFF) asked what challenges were experienced by the DWS regarding the implementation of the Umkhomazi Water Project phase 1, if any, and how was it dealing with them?

Why had the Blue and Green drop programmes been discontinued? What would be the impact of the National Water Resource Infrastructure Agency on water resources and service delivery across the country?

In 2007, the then Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry had published the draft South African National Water Resources Infrastructure Agency Limited Bill, which was intended to establish the agency. Why was the process abandoned and why was the DWS currently conducting a new process altogether to establish a new agency? What did Operation Vulindlela entail in practice and to what extent was the DWS involved in this initiative?

Mr L Basson (DA) sought clarity on the Mokolo Crocodile River Water Augmentation Project Phase 2A. The project status stipulates that the Minister issued a formal directive for 100 million cubic metres per annum, but then it was also noted that Cabinet had approved only 75 million cubic metres per annum - which one was it?

On the Berg River-Voëlvlei Augmentation Scheme, clarity was needed on when the project would begin. When Cape Town was dealing with ‘day zero’, it had been brought forward, and the Committee was informed that the TCTA would receive funding because there was an offtake agreement with the City of Cape Town. When was the expected start of this project, and would it still be funded externally via the TCTA?

With Phase 2 of the Olifants River Water Resources Development Project; there was currently a problem with insufficient water in Polokwane, and he wanted to know what the timeline was for this project and whether it could be brought forward. He also wanted to know whether the DWS had investigated the possibility that from the Olifants dam, a fixed kilometre pipeline could be brought that could assist with another six megalitres of water per day.

Regarding the Natural Water Resource Infrastructure Agency, it was stated that there was a threat due to the low revenue flow, and that would not change ‘even if the source was taken from one hand to another hand.’ How would the DWS deal with that, and how would the construction unit fit in with the new infrastructure agency? He believed it was a good thing, and that that was the route to be taken.

Finally, if the TCTA or if the agency sourced money from outside and the construction unit was inside, could the construction unit be used as an implementing agent or have the contract given to them if it was internal? This may be technical, but he needed information on that.  

Ms M Mohlala (EFF) told the DHS that the Mooikloof development was not transformative at all. Baldwin Properties was the main player in the sectional title market, and was white-owned and managed. How were black people going to benefit from the value chain, or would they just be consumers of this project?  This was not just for Mooikloof, but the entire project. They were being told about transformation, but they must not see the same things that were happening in Mooikloof. 

An issue with the DWS was the 90 days to finalise water use licence applications. During the SONA, the President had reiterated that the DWS intended instituting a revised timeframe of 90 days to finalise water use licence applications. The National Water Act of 1998 mandates that the Department manages and controls South Africa’s water resources; the current system of issuing water use licences showed that many users found this system tedious due to long delays which resulted in some water users not complying with the law. With the pronouncement of the 90-day completion of water licence applications, had the DWS begun the process of amending the National Water Act, especially the section on regulations regarding the procedural requirements for water use licences and appeal.

How would the DWS ensure that it promotes equitable access to water through the provision of water licences? One would find, for example, that at the Jozini dam a water licence had been given to an individual white farmer, and the people closest to the dam were suffering and did not have water. How was the DWS going to ensure that while there were these licences that could be applied for by those who could afford to, what about the vulnerable people without water? How would this be balanced?

Regarding the Blue and Green Drop programmes, the challenge in ensuring the quality of water in South Africa was the shortage of dedicated government inspectors to police and prosecute offenders who still pollute and release waste and untreated water supplies into rivers, dams and lakes. The Blue Scorpions, which was the government unit set up to protect the country’s scarce resources, was understaffed. How many specialist members were in the Blue Scorpions? How was the DWS currently working on capacitating the Blue Scorpion unit, and what was the budgeted cost of increasing personnel within this unit?

The Green Scorpions, which dealt with the special environmental management inspectorate, had approximately 2 880 inspectors with a high rate of criminal prosecutions and administrative fines. Was there a possibility that the Department of Environmental Affairs, with its comprehensive know-how of addressing and managing the prosecution of polluters within the wastewater system, could take over the function from the DWS? The DWS had had limited success in prosecuting offenders within municipalities and amoung industry players. Could the DWS not emulate the Department of Environmental Affairs’ strategy in dealing with non-compliance or violation of environmental laws?

While the resuscitation of the Green and Blue Drop reports were welcomed; how would the DWS and the Department of COGTA deal with the challenges of insufficient skilled process controllers to manage the water treatment plans and process drinking water quality, dealing with the monitoring of the inconsistencies, non-adherence to the monitoring programme and the data uploading on the Blue Drop system?

Previously, one of the main factors that had impacted the publishing of the Green and Blue Drop reports was the limited budget. How would this be addressed now and would water use associations and municipalities ‘contribute’ to relieving the budget constraints by the DWS imposing an additional charge on the water pricing strategy to incorporate and continue the Blue and Green Drop process of reporting?

On the finalisation and implementation of the revised water pricing strategy, what were the challenges from the previous strategy of 2007 that necessitated a revision? What were the main changes from the previous version of the pricing strategy?

The President had dealt with the acceleration of the establishment of the National Water Resource Infrastructure Agency. In 2008 the South African National Water Resource Infrastructure Agency Limited bill was tabled in Parliament. It provided for the agency to be listed as a juristic person owned and controlled by the state, to administer funds, finance, provide, operate, maintain, and provide advisory services in respect of national water resources infrastructure in accordance with section 27 (1) (b) of the Constitution and the national policy to provide for the transfer of assets and certain liabilities to the South African National Water Resource Agency limited from the TCTA. To prepare for the disestablishment of the TCTA, was the DWS moving towards retaining the provision of the 2008 bill? If so, the Committee needed to carefully interrogate the process of the formulation of this new bill to establish a new agency. For example, Members had to understand and raise questions to ensure that effective and rigorous processes were followed in establishing the agency, such as whether the agency would be listed as a juristic person owned and controlled by the state, and if so, could the DWS explain what this entails? If the TCTA was disestablished, as noted in the previous bill, would the staff of the TCTA be transferred to the agency?

Studies had shown that in South Africa, most challenges affecting the success of the financing of water infrastructure project was corruption, hostility towards private participation, recovery constraints, a high fiscal deficit by the state government, unreliable planning and procurement processes, and a rapid increase in the number of municipalities that lacked the technical and administrative capacity to plan, implement, operate and maintain water assets. Could the DWS commit to undertake an independent regulatory impact assessment? The commitment to reduce red tape and ensure better regulation went beyond policymaking and the legal drafting of implementation, and required consideration of unintended consequences.

Ms E Powell (DA) said that the President’s SONA speech had been thin on human settlements issues, and when the Minister spoke in the SONA reply, DHS issues were ignored altogether -- it seemed that the entire speech was delegated to water issues. She appreciated that the DHS had taken the time to ’bulk up’ the presentation for the Committee.

Regarding the five-year plan of the DHS on the informal settlement upgrades and the priority human settlements development areas, covering 2019 to 2024, the DHS had announced that in the first year (2019-20), it would deliver 470 000 housing units, 300 000 serviced sites, 30 000 social housing units and would upgrade 1500 informal settlements. This was what had been spoken about in the presentation. However, in that first financial year, the DHS had managed to achieve only 126 informal settlement upgrading plans against the annual target of 300. This was less than half of the annual target, and no informal settlements were upgraded to phase 3 against a target of 300.

The presentation spoke about the 1 500 informal settlements being upgraded, and she was concerned because the target that was achieved in the first financial year was zero. In this plan, the DHS also announced the rezoning of 17 000 hectares of land for these priority development areas, but in the first financial year, only 2 800 hectares, amounting to 17%, was finalised. Judging by the progress that the DHS had been making, between zero and 50% of the annual targets on these priority areas were being met. The plans were fantastic, but could the DHS guarantee that it was on track to meet the prioritised plans in terms of its five-year strategic vision, and if so, how it was planning on recovering from the failure to meet the annual targets in the first financial year.

When they concluded the Committee meeting last Tuesday, there was an outstanding question that she had emailed to the Department’s office and the Director General’s office, An undertaking had been made to provide a written response but there had been no reply, and she wanted to know when a response to her question could be expected.

Ms N Sihlwayi (ANC) said that she might be lost in understanding the presentation, based on some of the areas raised by the President in the SONA.

She thought that the DHS had managed to grasp the issue of spatial planning. However, she was confused by ten areas being considered for land planning and housing in the Eastern Cape, ten in the Free State, nine in Kwa-Zulu Natal, and 14 in Mpumalanga -- yet, in the presentation, the Committee had been told of other housing projects where the DHS had not performed in other years, and she sought clarity on this.

Regarding the programme that the President had presented in the recovery economic plan, the DHS had talked about showing transformation in everything it does. For example, when an investor was looking for a site for a factory, was the DHS with other departments in terms of a new model and ready to accommodate that investor? She raised this because of the issue of readiness of a piece of land that had beeb identified for a particular factory -- did it have bulk infrastructure? Were the costs relaxed for the private sector to participate in that programme, to make things easier? There needed to be a positive response, considering the country’s current economic decline.

(Ms Silhwayi raised issues concerning the Western Cape, the Mzimvubu Water Project, and water licensing, but owing to poor sound quality, these were not clear.)

She concluded that there were major costs involved for the Department’s projects, and it had been reported that there was no money to start them. When the President was presenting the SONA, the Department should have raised a hand and said that there was no money for what he was talking about. The President and the community had high expectations, so how was the DHS going to deal with this? There were billions required for all of the projects, but there was no money.

Ms N Mvana (ANC) referred to the challenge of keeping up with the growing demand for housing. Every year, houses had to be built for beneficiaries, but these did not get completed and the process had to start over again. There was also something wrong with a system that could pass a person who already had a house. She did not know how far the process was of recording these persons in a system, so it was known that whoever had a house could not leave their family there and then apply for another house.

She wanted to know why were the unfinished projects from the pre-1994 apartheid era not being completed. It seemed that they did not listen or take instructions from the President, because he emphasised infrastructure and development. She was concerned because there were projects that had been there for centuries -- why did they not change the strategy and ensure that the projects were completed? It might also be necessary, because when the shortage of water in these areas was discussed, people were asking whether municipalities were utilising the money given to them. The Committee could not answer those questions. Although it had the reports from the financial year, there were no specifics or a breakdown of the money that was being sent to these municipalities and provinces so that the Committee could see where it needed to assist.

The Committee had to pull up its socks. The water issues were frustrating everyone. There were still areas that did not receive water at all. People did not understand when they are told that there is no water in a particular area while they see that it is raining. The Committee might have to go back to the drawing board to look at the boreholes situation at a national level. They needed to check where the boreholes were and the problems that were being encountered with them, to ensure that money given to municipalities and provinces could be ring-fenced and utilised only for that specific project. She was disappointed by the progress in delivering water to these areas.

The Chairperson said one of the priorities of the SONA raised by the President was to defeat the COVID-19 pandemic, and this required washing of hands, etc. She wanted to check on the projects that were implemented by the DWS in supporting municipalities without water. Why was the DWS avoiding talking about it? Water tanks were provided, and municipalities were assisted to buy trucks, and now there was no follow-up on sustainability, which had been raised as an issue by the Committee. The communities should continue to have that benefit, because COVID had not gone away.

Although the 136 areas of development had been proclaimed, the budget structure of the DHS did not address those areas. For instance, in the last meeting, the DHS said that it was taking some money from other provinces to the Western Cape and Northern Cape, and this was one of the reasons the DHS had said that it was trying to ensure that the budget of the DHS was not lost to the National Treasury. It was also indicated that in the Western Cape, 70% of the budget it had goes to the City of Cape Town. How would the DHS ensure that these other areas benefited from the budget structure? Were they going to see a shift in the budget structure, particularly for the Western Cape?

Metros were being funded in terms of the Urban Settlement Development Grant (USDG), and one of the issues was that infrastructure development was being funded. A report that the Committee had received from the DWS showed how many of the metros were not complying with water resource management, and were polluting rivers etc. As new development partnering was being planned and other areas partnering with the private sector was being discussed, the private sector was moving ahead of the state and was building modern gated houses and residences without knowing how sewerage or wastewater treatment plants were managed. Many of them needed upgrades or were not working. How could one ensure that as implementation occurred in these areas, infrastructure development and maintenance becomes key, even if some of the areas do not belong to the DWS and belong to the DHS?

The DWS had indicated that their development was underpinned by the DDM, and if it was taking that direction, when would one see planning and collaboration between the DWS and DHS in terms of laying the foundation for infrastructure development before the actual development takes place in the area, to ensure that the problems of wastewater treatment that were presented, were alleviated?

To add to the question asked by Mr Basson on Polokwane; there had been a struggle with the dam that was giving Polokwane water. It had been reported that in the Letaba area; the Letaba reserves were for the farmer who was constructing legal dams that stop the stream of the water that flowed into dams such as the one in Polokwane. What was the DWS going to do before it could even discuss bringing another pipe to Polokwane? The issues to be addressed in Letaba were were man-made problems. Initially, the Scorpions had gone and demolished dams in the area that were not constructed in the correct areas – would they see the DWS acting with speed in those areas? Polokwane and Letaba were currently in dire need of water, and the water streams had been closed by the farmers.

Regarding the water irrigation schemes, would these schemes be using climate-smart irrigation technologies? The master plan indicated that there was water, but they had to protect the irrigation system as water was being wasted.

The Chairperson concluded by raising questions about the revised pricing strategy, the implementation of the prefential procurement policy in the Department, and the filling of vacant posts.

Responses

Department of Human Settlements

Mr Joseph Leshabane, Deputy Director-General: Project and Programme Management, DHS, said that the projects that were planned within the priority development areas were underpinned by the DHS’s objective to deal with spatial transformation, consolidation of those functional spaces and to meet the basic requirement for housing. This also meant that the DHS sought to focus on specific areas.

The DHS’s grants were also used to direct private investors into those areas, therefore it had been contracting with those developers so that where they could collaborate and greater impact was achieved. Unfortunately, many of these areas were dealing with legacy issues and the DHS was having to invest a lot more for the required infrastructure going forward.

He said urban growth in the country happened at a faster rate than the DHS could provide the bulk infrastructure, but it was dealing with that matter, and it was why it had said that planning should take place in those spaces.  

The DHS was prioritising informal settlements and in this coming financial year, it should be able to present to the Committee a full portfolio of the settlements in the country and their profiles. The Committee should appreciate that informal settlements spring up in a manner that in themselves put people at risk. They had all been devastated by the news of the children that had drowned in the City of Cape Town, and that was why the Minister took a stand to support the families. That came out of the DHS’s focus to upgrade informal settlements and to reduce the risks and hazards that households were facing in those spaces.

He confirmed that there was a central database of all beneficiaries of subsidy housing -- not a single person in the Republic could benefit twice from a subsidy. When a person was approved for a subsidy, by law that approval had to be recorded. This record was available across all provinces and allowed the provinces to cross-check before approving a beneficiary. There was a lot of migration and movement of people, and people in informal settlements or backyards may have benefited elsewhere. This alone disqualified them from further assistance, and that required that they be channelled to access other possibilities such as proper rental accommodation and so on, but they could not receive a subsidy twice.

On the questions raised by the Chairperson, he confirmed that parallel to having declared the 136 areas, the DHS was saying that the bulk of its grants should be spent in those spaces. The DHS was now introducing the ‘informal settlements upgrading partnership grant,’ which targeted the informal settlements in those areas. Naturally, the consolidated capital grant for social housing already went into those areas. Therefore, the budget structure did support this work, and the DHS was ensuring that the provinces' annual delivery plans gave expression to these priorities.  

The DHS did collaborate with the DWS. Before the declaration of the 136 areas, the DHS had to look at the areas from a water resource perspective and had received insightful and helpful information on how the DWS does its analysis. Going forward, the DHS would be strengthening the planning; this was why the DHS had introduced the ‘spatial planning forum for human settlements,’ where all the affected national Departments sit in and evaluate the prioritisation of infrastructure and the synchronisation thereof in all of these areas. This forum was replicated in all the provinces.

Lastly, on how the DHS gives strength legally and politically to the priority for women’s empowerment; he said the DHS had set aside allocations and budget expenditure targets for women and youth, people living with disabilities, and military veterans. The DHS was now giving expression to these in the context of the Division of Revenue Act (DORA), which was the DHS’s grant framework, and providing administrative directives under the hand of the accounting officer and the Minister’s own monitoring of this in the context of the Ministers and Members of Executive Council (MINMEC) to ensure that what was legally permissible was realised and the administrative and political principles in the provinces and metros were held to account in that respect.

Ms Funani Matlatsi, Chief Financial Officer, DHS, said that the last instance that the Department was enforcing was the directives that the DG was to sign enforcing the 40%, because they did not want to put it in the grant framework in contrast to what was done previously, as the AG had found them wanting in coercing the provinces and metros to report and to affect their annual financial statements and annual reports. They were therefore cautious, but were enforcing the directives to the metros and provinces to stay within the boundaries for the 40% for the vulnerable groups.

To Ms Powell, regarding the DHS not publishing the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the government gazette, the response had been forwarded by the Ministry to the Chairperson, and it should reach Ms Powell not long from today. The DHS was mindful of the fact that at the time the concern was raised, the response had not been received.

She also wanted to emphasise that the government had been experiencing technical delays which had led them to not being able to publish the government gazette and the tender bulletin.

The Chairperson said that she was informed by the secretary that the information arrived yesterday, and she requested that it be given to Members.

Further input from the DHS was requested.

Deputy Minister Tshwete said that the questions were answered and could be followed up if necessary.

Department of Water and Sanitation

Deputy Minister Mahlobo said thanked the Committee for the issues and comments raised. He would begin the responses.

He told Mr Mashego that the Department’s understanding may differ from his view. The issues that the President had announced did not necessarily mean that some of those issues should be completed within the particular year of the announcement. The President had stated key priorities, especially for the DWS, and some of these priorities went beyond a particular stage, depending on the nature of the work. For example, when the President speaks about infrastructure or network industries, which includes water; in terms of the doctrine for the infrastructure itself, in the built environment there would be several phases to go through.

There would be a planning phase, with all the important aspects around the feasibility studies, budget, etc, and even before a project could be put on the ground for any infrastructure-related DWS project there were three important documents that normally caused delays. These compliance issues included the need for environmental authorisation, which was an important tool. This takes time because the feasibility study must be done, someone must complete an environmental management report, and so on. Also, for the DWS, because of the impact on the water resources, a Record of Decision (ROD) was required. This normally leads to a water use authorisation, or licence. The Ready to Implement Document (RID) was also required, and there were the designs and other issues. Those planning processes in the infrastructure environment differ depending on the magnitude of the infrastructure project, and this could sometimes take years and were sometimes delayed, and there were other compliance issues. Therefore, it did not necessarily mean that the DWS was oblivious to the things that were to take place.

The Mzimvubu Water Project was regrettably a matter that had been discussed for over 60 years, and this was unacceptable; but there were certain stages one had to go through.  He thought that the DWS should be able to correct that, because looking at the date -- October 2021 -- on slide 9, it was very clear that the designs must first be completed; one did do not want to do projects where a consultant or contractor goes to a site without a reconnaissance, and if there was no ‘recon’, the wrong people could be placed and that was what had happened in some of the projects. For example, without a geological report, after drilling 100 metres down, no water would be found because the RID was not done. There were certain projects and contractors where there was no plan or the design was made to suit themselves, and at the end of the day billions would be spent and the DWS was avoiding that.

The President’s pronouncement on the establishment of a National Water Resource Infrastructure Agency was not a new concept. As the DWS had said, it was about consolidating the capabilities and the assets. The DWS must minimise the risks and create the ability for the state to be able to go out into the market and use the balance sheets of those assets and borrow the money to be able to raise the necessary capital for the infrastructure of the social economic needs of the country.

For the record, at this stage, there was no bill on the table. On whether the old bill would be used or not; there was no bill. In the previous exercise, it went through the executive at the time and ended up in the legislature, and the committees at the time who looked at those issues. Amongst the records of the DWS Portfolio Committee it was indicated that the matter had been referred back to the executive because when it got to the public consultation stage, there had been various stakeholders with different views. This matter had not been revived in the 5th administration -- the DWS was reviving this matter only in the 6th administration.

The DWS had started internally to conclude the DWS’s ‘concept document’ on the form and content of these issues and how the infrastructure agency would look. In the meantime, the views of the DWS were clear that at the backdrop of the formation of that infrastructure agency would be the current entities that were responsible for major infrastructure work. This included the TCTA, the DWS’s water trading entity, which includes all the main issues of the infrastructure branch and the DWS’s construction unit.

As the DWS continues, there would be issues concerning labour matters and governance. The executive discussions would be shared with the Committee. The executive also makes the determination assessment for any bill to be considered by the Members. The DWS had not reached that point, but the DWS would use the input received to refine its document. It should be indicated that affordability was an important issue. including the funding mechanism. because there would always be a funding model that takes into consideration the offtake agreement by also using the administrative prices to be able to draw investors into this agency. Some of the issues could be found in the documents of the past which could be used as base documents; even though the conditions and issues changed over time.

Operation Vulindlela had the aim of departments working together to deal with all impediments and structural challenges that would negatively impact the economic reconstruction and recovery plan. The plan had identified certain structural issues that required reform. The DWS and other departments had identified issues where they could work together on plans and processes, including looking at capacity.

For the DWS, the issues of water use licensing were important. It had an element of impacting on investor confidence because of the tedious processes, and there had been many steps for people to follow. There was a defined process, and applying for a licence was not easy, especially for historically disadvantaged individuals, and this why the process had been reviewed and modernised. The application process had been reduced, and there was also a helpdesk for assistance.  Another element was the licence itself. Water allocation in South Africa remained skewed. Certain sectors continued to enjoy more access to water than other sectors. The Committee would know that agriculture was receiving more than other sectors, and that water must be released for use by others. Transformation was important.

There was also a transformation issue where black people in general never had access to water and equally never had access to the benefits that were proved with access to water. Water was a catalyst and important for economic development. Without water and power generation, one would not be able to engage in any business. These were the elements that the DWS would like to come back to the Committee and report on -- over a particular period, to which sectors had the DWS been issuing these licences, how many black people had benefitted, and how many women and youth-owned enterprises had been taken into consideration.

There was a technical issue. A water licence could not be issued unless there was water available. Certain catchment areas were stretched, and water was no longer available, and the DWS would have to undertake the process of compulsory licensing. The DWS would like to come back and report on its progress and targets.

He agreed with the comment on cross-cutting issues, and Mr Manus would have to speak with Ms Mocholtli on defeating the COVID-19 pandemic. The President spoke about it, and the DWS did provide tanks and water trucks in the first phase. The second phase of the plan presented to the Committee was that the DWS wanted to look at sustainable solutions. One of these solutions was that in communities where there was no water at all, Ms Sihlwayi and Ms Mvana were correct that the use of groundwater should be considered. Where there was no infrastructure in some of those communities, the DWS had agreed that spring protection should be done. The tendering business was a temporary measure, but it could not proceed because it was susceptible to abuse by some officials and municipalities, or counsellors, or some other influential persons. If tenders were to be used, they must be tenders owned by the government or by municipalities. The DWS would like to return to this, because this was a matter arising.

On state capability, the DWS was trying to support local government. Regarding the Scorpions and the Blue and Green Drop programmes, there was an army of men and women that were trained for water leaks and municipalities had been refusing to use them. The DWS had said that these people could be used for three months and assist municipalities’ assessment of their capacity, and the value of this should be seen so that issues of water conservation, demand management, and water leaks could be dealt with. This was one of the problems -- that many young people had not been absorbed by municipalities, but could become a better resource to help municipalities. This was a matter that the DWS had been discussing with COGTA.

On fighting crime, corruption and malfeasance, he agreed with the Chairperson. The DWS wanted to be called to address this matter again, and it should be able to provide a progress report on this, including the progress report on the filling of vacancies.

Mr Manus, Ms Mochotli and Ms Sigwaza were requested to deal with the rest of the issues, especially on the UMkhomazi Water Project, which was very exciting. Towards the end of last year, the Department of Environmental Affairs, Forestry and Fisheries was able to receive one of the three important documents called the environmental authorisation; this was important now, as the DWS could be able to ensure that people in the area would benefit from a project that would stimulate the economy. The DWS should be able to conclude the Mgeni water plant, which was exciting news.

Some work had happened around the Mzimvubu Water Project, and DWS teams were on the ground doing a particular phase, but certain phases needed to be dealt with now. There were administrative and funding challenges. Funding was one of those issues that required working with Treasury, the office of the President and infrastructure. Mr Manus could elaborate on this.

Ms Mochotli said that she would deal with some specifics and would indicate which of her colleagues would address them.

Mr Manus would respond to the challenges of the uMkhomazi water project, the 75 versus the 100-diameter pipe, the dam in the Western Cape, and day zero.

Ms Sigwaza would respond to why the Green and Blue drop programmes were stopped.

On the 90 days, Deputy Minister Mahlobo had responded. However, the current Act recognises previous water use, called the ‘existing lawful water use’, which perpetuates the status quo of inequality in water allocation. This was what the DWS was seeking to do with the amendment of the National Water Act.

Deputy Minister Mahlobo had dealt with the complexity of processing licences. To add to this, the DWS was not only challenged when a licence was not issued, such as by an applicant who was aggrieved by the DWS not issuing a licence. The DWS also got challenged by other individuals or organisations for having issued licences, and this was either based on there being no water or inadequate water, or on water quality, etc. When this happens, that issued licence was suspended, so the water cannot be used unless the applicant appealed to the Minister. In that case the water could still be used, but this depended on the strength of that individual’s motivation. It was not only through licences that water use was authorised, but this was also why the DWS did not necessarily refer to it as ‘licences,’ and calls it ‘use or authorisation’. There was a general authorisation and an application that did not require a licence or general authorisation. Community education must be strengthened.

On why the DWS was not copying the Department of Environmental Affairs’ (DEA’s) compliance and regulatory regime; the DWS had been working on collaborating with the DEA for years now, and the DWS had even shared investigators so that when they did their work, they would also keep a lookout for water issues. This would continue.

On the issue of the agency, what could be assured was that the Committee was part of the key stakeholders that the DWS was still going to consult with. The agency was currently at the conceptual stage, but what was certain was that the establishment of the agency would go ahead. The financial model was not yet complete, as there were HR-related issues, considering when the TCTA would be disestablished, and these issues were being taken care of.

Mr Manus could address the Mzimvubu issue. Mzimvubu had a history and background and she wondered whether this project needed a special presentation where the DWS could take Members through the background and what was happening on that project, and it could be called a ‘programme’. The plan as it stands was about freedoms and hydropower, and there were issues to talk about that were not appropriate for this meeting.

There were areas with rain, but no water and groundwater. Mr Matlala could discuss the groundwater map developed by the DWS and how it would assist with local groundwater use. He could also talk about the groundwater management strategy that was well consulted with all stakeholders and how the DWS assists municipalities through water services and local water management.

The DWS had moved from the COVID-19 phase 1 project, which was about issuing water tanks and taking water to communities or filling the tanks with water. Mr Manus would address phase 2.

The Chairperson asked about the DWS funding infrastructure and providing water to metros, but they were not complying. As water-users, they were regulated like all other water-users, and they could have their water licences suspended for not complying with the conditions of the authorisation of their water. However, this should be done with sensitivity because the metros were providing for basic water use such as drinking water and livelihoods, and this was a constitutional right. When water was limited or stopped for a metro, or any municipality loses authority, there was tampering with the basic human rights of individuals and that may create problems for the DWS. The DWS does all it can to engage with water services authorities; the Intergovernmental Relations Act was usually where licences were suspended. The National Water Act also provides that before authorisation is issued, there must be a reserve -- ‘a reserve was water for basic human need and ecology’. The DWS could not easily suspend licences.

The irrigation schemes were part of the reforms in the water sector that had existed for some time now. The irrigation boards were to be turned into water use associations. There were difficulties with this, but the DWS was trying its best. Regarding the technology, the masterplan did deal with this. Ms Sigwaza would talk about this and the uptake of technology. There were partnerships with the Water Research Commission, the Department of Science and Technology (DST) and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to improve technology in the DWS. The digitisation project would be used for water quality to ensure timeous, credible and accurate information that could inform decisions.

On women’s empowerment, she thought that the DWS was doing well. Ms Nthabiseng would respond to this.

On the Bucket Eradication Programme (BEP), progress had been very slow, and the Minister had indicated that this had been given to the housing development agency (HDA) to finalise the project, and the DWS hoped that the backlog would be addressed. 

Regarding the vacancies, she could not talk to the DG and the DDG’s posts. The Chairperson had already indicated that the Committee would ask the Minister to come and address that matter. With other posts, the delays were caused by COVID-19 and the restructuring of the DWS. The DWS had been vigilant with this and it was a standing item on the agenda of top management. This was impacting service delivery and constraining the limited resources of the DWS that it did not want to lose. Yesterday’s meeting had recorded progress here, and the DWS had indicated to HR that it would like to see more progress in this regard.

Mr Manus said that his responses would start with the challenges of the uMkhomazi project. The DWS had had an issue during the environmental impact assessment (EIA), as it was determined that there was a ‘quite unique little creature’ called the ‘blue swallow’ where the project was supposed to take place, and this was a fatal flaw that required the balancing dam to be redesigned to ensure that the DWS reduced its impact and mitigated risks. This also required the R617 regional road to be relayed, to ensure that there was no detrimental impact inside the nature reserve in that space. The DWS received responses in late November 2020 from the authority on environmental authorisations, and there was also a 30-day appeal period. No appeals were made, and this hadallowed the TCTA to proceed without limitations being placed on the project.

On the Mokolo Crocodile River Augmentation project and whether it was as per the directive or the plan, certain conversations, considerations and redesign calculations had been made and the programme was proceeding on the 75 million cubic metre per annum design for the 160-kilometre pipeline, and this project had proceeded to 99% completion as far as the design component was concerned.

The Berg River-Voëlvlei Augmentation Scheme remained an off-budget project, and the DWS had made its contribution for a project preparation to the TCTA, even though the DWS had not progressed as far as it wanted to with the offtake agreements, The TCTA had reported that the DWS had made some progress and it was anticipated that this 24-month project would commence in January 2022. This meant that 24 months later, water flowing to the Voëlvlei dam was expected.

On the Olifants River Water Resources Development Project, this programme had been packaged in various phases, of which a few phases – 2A and 2C -- had been completed and were in commission. 2D was currently in planning, as the DWS was currently on budget, and 2B which would go off-budget to Mogalakwena from Bashilo through the TCTA. The DWS was trying to start accelerating the project because it understands that going through it phase by phase, the way the budget allows, may take longer to complete than it would like. A parallel process was underway to see how the project could be accelerated, and a decision would be reached in this regard soon.

He referred to the Olifants River Water Resources Development Project. Lepelle water was the owner of that infrastructure, and had approached the DWS for assistance in terms of the planning component that had been granted, and for its support in approaching Treasury to proceed off-budget. The DWS was proceeding to render this support to Lepelle water, and hoped the project could be completed as soon as possible.

The DWS, on budget, had secured funding to get stage 1 of the Mzimvubu project under way. The DWS’s construction unit was on-site and had already started widening the road and doing site preparations. Site establishment was being done to ensure that the advanced infrastructure, as far as the road was concerned, would be completed. In parallel, it was also proceeding with reconfiguration conversation and studies to reduce costs as far as possible. The reconfiguration might require certain phases or stages to be deferred until a stage where there would be new possibilities for funding.

On the Butterworth dams, the Xilinxa dam was the primary storage for the town of Butterworth/ This dam had not benefited from significant rainfallm but the DWS was happy that dam levels had increased from 0% to at least in the vicinity of 10%, which was significant, as this was much more than the capacity of the Gcuwa Weir dam. The DWS had been involved in the Gcuwa Weir recovery strategy, and had completed a thorough study to determine whether it should go for the dredging or raising of the weir. The engineering services had done a feasibility study that had been signed, and were busy with the designs of the raising of the weir, and subject to the process of procurement, the DWS trusts that it would be able to commence with construction in the financial year starting after the rainy season.

On the COVID-19 projects, the DWS had been slow as far as procurement was concerned but momentum had picked up. The DWS had 22 sites in the Free State and eight sites in the Northern Cape that had been completed and converted to become sustainable water supplies from boreholes into the tanks and to the community, which was working well. There were 36 sites under construction, and the engineering services component had completed the designs and bill of quantities for more than 1 000 sites. The DWS was collaborating with municipalities, where municipalities had shown the capability to implement themselves, using the R689 million that was set aside by Treasury and had been allocated to municipalities to fulfil this function. Some business plans were received late and some were still being received and some had started work early, so some were under construction and some were completed.

The allegations surrounding water flows to the Letaba dam being intercepted were a possibility, and the DWS would investigate this. It had noticed the reports that were circulating in this regard. Something strange had happened in the vicinity of the Letaba catchment area, where no significant rain had fallen throughout the rainy season, whilst other areas had lots of rain -- it was not uniform across that space. However, what the DWS had picked up at the Albasini dam was that after  the hydro peaks had ‘gone past,’ there had been an influx of water in that area which indicated that there might have been a smaller farm dam that had a failure, and that water had flowed into the dam. The decision had been taken to make use of satellite imagery, together with regulatory colleagues, to trace what had been registered and could be unregistered and focus on that area for possible interception of water that was not legal. It was much easier to do such tracing after rainfall, and the Committee would understand that that area in the northern part of Limpopo had been suffering from low rainfall for some time. This would receive attention over the next few weeks.

The last component, on irrigation and using climate-smart technologies, the DWS agrees. The DWS had been engaging with the agricultural sector on this issue, and was happy to report that according to the Water Research Commission, there had been a slight reduction in water use, even though there was an increase in areas under irrigation. This meant that there was more efficient technology being applied, and the DWS would continue advocating for this.

Ms Sigwaza referred to the Department’s capacity, and said there were 30 designated environmental management inspectors who were responsible for the monitoring of water use at the local level and there were another 40 that would be trained and designated as well. Although these inspectors were not referred to as ‘blue or green scorpions’, they did assist with monitoring the water use at the local level.  

On the pricing strategy challenges, and why the DWS had delayed since 2015; she said she would only mention a few issues that have caused the delay. These included the issue of agricultural capping, which meant that as part of its water use charges, the DWS subsidises the agricultural sector. The DWS was recommending that the subsidies be removed in the new pricing strategy, but Treasury wanted the DWS to engage in a formal discussion with the agricultural sector. The second issue was around the future bill for infrastructure, and how the DWS was going to pay for future infrastructure investments in the country. There was a concern that ‘if we start building the future infrastructure, the current generation would pay for the future generation,’ and the DWS was working on that.  There was also the issue of cross-subsidisation, and how the DWS would cross-subsidise.

Deputy Minister Mahlobo interrupted and said the statement was that ‘we were making the future generation carry the building cost of the current generation,’ and not the other way around.

Ms Sigwaza thanked Deputy Minister Mahlobo and continued with cross-subsidisation and how the DWS would ensure that poor areas were subsidised where there was no economic anchor for how they would be cross-subsidised. Another issue was public interest that was not quantified for water resource charges, and the main one was a subsidy for the poor. The DWS was proposing that the subsidy for poor resource farmers be extended from five years to ten years, but there still needed to be agreement on how it would be funded.

The Blue and Green Drop had been discontinued mainly because of capacity, but it was not completely stopped. The DWS had continued internally on a very small scale to look at areas of non-compliance, but it had not publicised the results because the DWS did not cover the entire country.

Finally, in reply to Mr Mashego on the tender, she apologised for the DWS not explaining the matter clearly. That tender was the Blue and Green Drop tender which was currently being adjudicated in this financial year, and should be awarded within a few weeks, with the hope to start in April 2021.

Mr Matlala said that the DWS wanted to ensure conductive use of both surface and groundwater. The DWS had developed the groundwater management strategy which assisted the DWS in terms of mapping the groundwater in the entire country, classifying the aquifers (which was the underground storage of groundwater) and this was the information that had been used in the water and sanitation masterplan.  The use of groundwater must increase so that we did not rely only on surface water and the building of dams.

On the support to local government, the DWS had the Municipal Strategic Self-Assessment (MuSSA) tool that the DWS had developed that assists local government municipalities with their vulnerability status in terms of the provision of water services and sanitation, technical capacity and water conservation and water management programmes. With all three elements of MuSSA, the water security of the country was being improved.  

On the utilisation of the water and sanitation programmes, the DWS was taking advantage of the fourth industrial revolution to make sure that as it monitors water resources, the latest technology available is used. This ensures that the DWS is improving and is efficient; gauge weirs cannot be built  in every river system -- other technologies must be used, as mentioned by Mr Manus, such as satellite imagery, especially where there were problems with coverage for the network for service providers.

Ms Fundakubi Nthabiseng, Chief Financial Officer, DWS, said that on the set aside for women to ensure that there was conformance with the pronouncement, and to be in line with the procurement regulations, the Department had revised the annual performance plan (APP) which was its procurement framework and had addresses the target, wherein 40% was set aside for women, 30% was set aside for youth and 7% for people with disabilities. The DWS did try to remain within the set targeted procurement.

The Deputy Minister had talked about Operation Vulindlela, and every effort was being made to ensure that the DWS moved with speed to address the key elements that had been identified for it. The DWS regularly met with the team, and there was a meeting scheduled for tomorrow.

Deputy Minister Mahlobo said that the responses should be complete, but other questions could be responded to in writing.

On the issue of the Blue and Green Drop programmes, the DWS would like all sectors to do additional reporting, especially municipalities. There were certain things that municipalities must report on an annual basis, according to the regulations This included issues of potable and effluent quantity and quality of water. Regulation 7079 was old, and the DWS must review some of the old regulations, so that at least the DWS would be doing ‘legally correct things.

The meeting was adjourned.

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: