Appointment of Water Economic Regulator Commission; water pollution in the Vaal and Hartbeespoort Dam; with Deputy Ministers

Meeting report

Opening remarks
 
The Acting Chairperson asked if there were any apologies, and was told there were apologies from the Minister, the Director-General and the Committee Chairperson, who were all in Denmark on an official trip.

She asked the Committee to move to the briefing by the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) on progress regarding the amendment of legislation including the National Water Services Act (NWA), the Water Services Act (WSA), the Water Research Act (WRA), and the current initiatives by the DWS on the appointment of the Water Economic Regulation Committee, in terms of Section 76 of the Water Services Act.

Presentations on legislation deferred

Ms Dikeledi Magadzi, Deputy Minister of Water and Sanitation, indicated that the Department had not finalised the presentation on the three pieces of legislation that had been put before the Committee. Once it had dealt with the amendments to the legislation, it could return to the Committee. The  Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) felt the work that had been done was not satisfactory, and this meant the Committee needed to do a lot of work on the amendments proposed. It asked for the three pieces of legislation be put aside until a later stage after the Department had done a thorough job. As they were finished, The DWS would bring them to the Committee one by one.

Mr David Mahlobo, Deputy Minister of Water and Sanitation, said DWS would have to withdraw the legislation as the work was incomplete and had not been sanctioned by the executive authority. The DWS would indicate when it would be ready. In the meantime, it was putting on record that the priority legislation for the Department and the country remained the National Water Resource Infrastructure Agency Bill. He asked the Committee bear with it to complete the internal processes, and it would advise through the secretariat when it was ready. It was ready to present the other items involving the independent economic regulator and impact of pollution on the two important systems.

Three officials of the Department made presentations to the Committee on the appointment of the Water Economic Regulator Commission, the Emfuleni Section 63 progress report, and the Hartbeespoort Dam integrated biological remediation programme

 Appointment of Water Economic Regulator Commission

The purpose of economic and social regulation was to protect the interests of the consumers without compromising the sustainability of the water services institutions. One of the key requirements for the effective implementation of economic and social regulation was to ensure it was appropriately empowered in the legislation to enhance its role in creating an enabling platform to perform its activities throughout the water value chain without any hurdles.

The purpose of the Regulator Commission was to provide strategic regulatory expertise, best practice insights, and to advise and provide guidance on the activities of the regulatory programme, with an initial focus on economic and social regulation of the water sector.

The Commission was comprised of 11-panel members appointed for a three-year term. It should be multidisciplinary in nature and possess in-depth experience in the water sector and regulation in general. The membership should reflect a fair racial, gender and geographic representation balance.

Emfuleni Section 63 Progress Report

The DWS said the Section 63 project involved four steps -- sewer removal for unblocking purposes, the repair of wastewater treatment works (WWTWs) and pump stations, the refurbishment of the WWTWs, pump stations and collapsed pipelines, and their upgrading.

The project had been costed as follows:

Leeuwkuil Catchment – R3.808 billion
Rietspruit Catchment – R2.710 billion
Sebokeng Catchment – R1.703 billion
Midvaal projects – R103.6 million
Rand Water Projects – R140.7 million

There was no costing for Emfuleni Local Municipality municipal infrastructure grant (MIG) projects, or the
repair of collapsed pipes, which would be addressed as and when required.

The institutional arrangements would involve the DWS, Rand Water, Sedibeng District and Emfuleni local municipalities.

Electrical and mechanical framework contractors would be appointed to get the pump stations functional, to pump the sewage to the wastewater treatment works; civil framework contractors would get the sewage to pump station 2 and to the wastewater treatment works, and stop sewage from leaking into streets and houses. Operations and maintenance would enable sewerage to flow freely through the pipes and prevent leakage into houses and streets.

The Department gave details of the progress with the refurbishment and upgrading of the pipelines.
(See attached presentation).

The Emfuleni Section 63 project encountered several challenges:
 
Resources had to be made available to execute ongoing operation and maintenance (O&M) functions sustainably;
Funding for effective operations and maintenance of the water and sanitation infrastructure had to be made available;
The socio-economic expectations of the community arising from the project must be managed;
The project must be able to procure construction contractors quickly and efficiently without “red tape;”
Community awareness programme to deal with sewer blockages and water leaks was needed;
Delays on the Sebokeng effluent reuse memorandum of understanding (MOU) – a Council resolution was required;
Cable theft, safety and security were a major risk for all sites, and needed urgent intervention

Hartbeespoort Dam Integrated Biological Remediation Programme

The Hartbeespoort Dam was completed in 1923, and further raised in 1969. It was mainly used for agriculture, recreation and potable use. Since the late 1960s, the dam has become increasingly eutrophic due to rapid urbanisation, leading to increased runoff, erosion, sedimentation, and solid waste entering the dam annually. To address the risks, in 2006, the DWS joined forces with the provincial and local government and local residents to find the most sustainable short and long term solutions.
 
The Integrated Biological Remediation Programme, also referred to as the “HartiesMetsi a Me,” was launched. The main aim of this project was to ensure that the DWS met its objective of achieving the desired state for the increasing trophic levels of the dam.

There were problems requiring attention not only in the dam itself, but also in the upstream catchment area.

In the catchment area, there were problems of stormwater, litter and debris, erosion and sedimentation; more than 720 megalitres of purified sewage per day; over 450 tons of phosphate per annum; shrinking wetlands; and rivers with depleted riparian vegetation and in-stream habitation.

The problems at the Hartbeespoort Dam included nutrient build-up, depleting biological filters; domination of exotic invasive water plants such as hyacinths and Salvinia, and increased algae blooms after storm events; undesired and exotic fish such as carp, catfish and canary kurper.

The overall objectives of the DWS to achieve sustainability were to implement integrated water resource management (IWRM) principles in the catchment area to enhance growth, development and work creation, and to determine, optimise and manage the physical and biological conditions in dams and catchments to ensure optimal diversity through a more efficient nutrient balance.

Discussion
 
The Chairperson thanked the Deputy Minister and the three presenters. She proceeded to take hands from the Committee Members.

Mr L Basson (DA) said he agreed with the Deputy Minister that money was being thrown at something that could not be fixed if it did not address the upstream problems. He did not know if it was possible to build a purification plant upstream to treat the water that came in. The municipalities and metros would not play their part, and putting money into Hartbeespoort now to clean the dam would, in some sense, help. At the end of the day, the constant stop-starts of these projects led to money not being dedicated to addressing the issue fully. He pleaded to the Minister that the upstream situation gets sorted out.

The wastewater plant in Hartbeespoort was contributing to this issue. It should be realised that downstream of Hartbeespoort was the food kitchen of Gauteng. More than 70% of everything eaten in Gauteng came from below the Hartbeespoort dam. It was built for agriculture , and serviced Maripeng and Hartbeespoort with water. It was also a tourist attraction, which was important for that area.

He believed that if the Committee and the Department stop-started on the dam, they should leave it, because it would get to a similar situation as the Dead Sea in Israel, where nothing lived, if the interests of the dam were not being protected. He requested the Minister to ensure that the Department acquired a dam safety report very soon. It would be 100 years old soon and there were community organisations that would like to celebrate this milestone. The Department and the municipality needed to play a vital role in that.

Ms R Mohlala (EFF) posed her first question to Rand Water on the Vaal River system intervention. The directive given to Rand Water, as per Section 63 of the Water Services Act, to be an implementing agent for the Vaal River system intervention, had been a good one, but it was not without its challenges. What was the estimated cost of Rand Water undertaking this directive? According to the Section 63 budget, had any funding been transferred to Rand Water? The Committee did not want a similar situation as the Giyani project, where Lepelle Northern Water had pulled out of the project because of the Department's failure to pay work-related costs for work undertaken timeously. If the Metsi-a-Lekoa was operating as a water and sanitation unit for the Emfuleni local municipality, it did not have the funds to undertake any work on the project. Why did the DWS expect this from the unit? Section 63 allowed for full control of the Department to complete the project. On slide 35, challenges were highlighted in fulfilling Section 63 of the directive. What were some resolutions to ensure full realisation and completion of the project?

Referring to the Hartbeespoort remediation project, she asked how much the state had spent over the years to address the removal of alien plants from the dam. Toxins in the water had a major impact on water users and those who collected water directly from the source. Unlike big commercial farmers who treated the water directly obtained from the dam, what systems were in place to ensure that communities dependent on this water were protected? The current water treatment plants do not have the capacity to provide potable water to the communities.

Ms M Pietersen (ANC) asked if the Department had workshopped the idea of establishing an economic regulator within key strategic areas in the water value chain to ensure food collaboration and participation. If this process was undertaken, she asked the Department to provide an overview of its findings. Why was nobody addressing alternative housing to informal settlements living along the river, and why was there no water treatment plant to provide potable water to the communities?

Mr G Hendricks (Al Jama-ah) congratulated the new members of the Commission, and looked forward to them implementing the constitutional requirements that water be accessible to all. It could not move to a higher level in a constitutional call for a right to water while it was struggling to give access to water. He requested the Commission members to engage with communities to gain a better understanding.

The Committee understood the Commission’s job was to set tariffs sometime in 2023, but what was the use of setting tariffs if people did not pay for the water? In Bushbuckridge, there were 10 000 water meters, and not a cent was collected from them.

One thing that was highlighted in the presentation was that when people opened their taps, there was a high chance there was urine in the water because it was not being treated. That was a sign of a failed state. There could not be a failed state, Department and Portfolio Committee when there was urine coming out of taps because it was not treated.

Lastly, much has been said about sewage pollution upstream of the dam. Sewage pollution was going to be worse than climate change, and if they did not want to be a failed state, it was a matter they had to address. The toxins that people spoke about were poisoning communities. In Khayelitsha, a million people were being poisoned because of the blooms that gave off toxins. The legislation was very important -- there needed to be a conceptual position and a policy on water that would be applied in the legislation for governance. If there was no legislation to give effect to the Constitution, they had neglected parts of the Constitution. They had harmed communities. He would not celebrate Hartbeespoort, because it had caused harm to so many people.

Ms N Sihlwayi (ANC) thanked the presenters for their clear presentations, and Deputy Minister Mahlobo for his opening comments on the issue of the regulator, because when she read the presentation, she had huge challenges and at a later stage she did mention being confused. He had managed to clarify where the Department was the regulator, and where it was going.

Referring to Rand Water, it should be understood that it was an external structure. In all the Committee's developments, it needed a sustainable approach. She was not getting a sense of Rand Water’s role in municipality structures. Municipalities had environmental structures, health and community services, and pollution was within those structures. This depended on how the municipalities were structured on their own. What was Rand Water’s role in this process, because at another time, Rand Water would need the space and the Committee needed to know what the structures of the municipalities were doing. She was not getting a sense of integration and commitment from the municipal structures on pollution.

Lastly, on Hartbeespoort, job creation was one area that had been raised when dealing with the Vaal, because there were certain plants where cleaning was needed. The issue of advocacy should be practical within the communities. People in these communities did not have jobs, and there were areas that needed to be structured well for them to participate, and a legacy could then be left when leading the communities. Removing alien trees and plants was easy; they needed someone to take communities on board, transfer skills, and empower them to do the job. This could be even as few as two or five people. She proposed that the process be implemented, as the Committee had called for this during the Vaal River issue. Could the process be presented to the Committee on how it would be done in Hartbeespoort?

The Chairperson said the DWS had programmes for working on fire and working on water. Those were the programmes that created jobs, especially for young people. She continued to see these programmes when she passed Hammanskraal -- there were normally young people in their overalls, but she was not sure whether the working for water teams was still there. She wanted to align herself with a question that Ms Sihlwayi had raised. How could one revive those teams if they were no longer there working with the Department of Environmental Affairs?

She said the Hartbeespoort remediation programme had been ongoing for years, so was the DWS not considering new technologies to address the increase in invasive plant species?

Lastly, the Emfuleni local municipality had a low revenue base, but the responsibility for the municipality's environmental transgression into the Vaal had had no hard-hitting consequence management for either the Department or the implementing agents. How sustainable was this approach in the long term and how accountable was the local municipality for utilising its municipal infrastructure grant?

Regarding the tariffs, previously, there were challenges to the role of Parliament. There had been uncertainty on whether the regulator would be able to include Parliament as part of the stakeholders, or if the Committee was still waiting for the amendment of the legislation to outline the role of Parliament in the entire process.

Mr A Tseki (ANC) said he wanted to add one more objective to the objectives of the regulatory commission --that it be tasked to educate people on water usage and the user-pay principle. The people that should be part of that commission should know about renewable urban and town planning. In his parliamentary constituency office, there was a company that converted algae into charcoal. He asked Deputy Minister Mahlobo if maybe he could send his team to observe what was being done, and would formalise that request if need be.

DWS's response

Deputy Minister Mahlobo said one of the matters brought to the Department's attention by the Committee at the beginning of the sixth term of Parliament had been the issue of the economic regulator. The Department was pleased this had been concluded. It was a highly contested issue between the Department, the South African Local Government Association (SALGA), and the municipalities. There had been a view that the DWS was both a referee and a player, and it was agreed that studies had to be conducted by it and National Treasury. Later, this matter was brought up as one of the matters to remove barriers around the question of conducting business. That was why the Presidency had taken a keen interest. Within a short period of time, he and Minister Mchunu had assumed the responsibility as a stand-alone ministry. The matter had now been concluded so that the issues of water use charges, especially those related to the bulk issues that it normally charged, had been resolved. There was an independent body, as the team had provided. It considered that when it conducted the pricing strategy, which was part of the water use charges, it had to ensure it consulted.

He agreed with Mr Hendricks that the views of communities were going to be important. The DWS still wanted water to be affordable in the country. Water remained a human right, but for the economic use of water, it would not be able to sustain the current charges. There should therefore be a differentiated approach, and exercises of analysis, research and feasibility studies have been conducted over time. The Department had decided to use current provisions in the legislation to create a commission in the form of an advisory committee, so that these matters could be properly processed. This was to ensure independent thought and the ability of the Minister, as an executing authority, to conclude these matters. There would be some legislative issues to strengthen the DWS as it expands its responsibilities.

The DWS was pleased the Committee was supporting the Department's work. It hoped as it moved to the next tariff site by the end of the financial year, it would be able to begin seeing a resolution of these issues. As it addressed the water use charges, there were matters of the debt owed on water by municipalities and other users. For the sustainability of the sector, and to avoid water shedding, such as what was happening at Eskom, it would still rely on the Committee as the leadership of the people to ensure the user-pay principle was respected. Despite those who could not pay, the government should still be able to continue with its own social security protection policies on the question of free basic water. It might re-evaluate that question and ascertain whether the numbers were still the same. It also needed to instill a change of culture, because South Africans were consuming more water.

The DWS was considering the issues of pollution very seriously. He agreed that the Department would have to return to regulation, because those who studied the Water Services Act saw the need for enforcement. The spirit of the regulation was fine, but the issue was those who were not complying with the requirements and conditions of the licences. The administrative process involved issuing notices, and once they had been issued, people were required to produce a remedial action plan. People would commit to a plan, but not follow it. Directives would be issued thereafter. The process was administratively fair, but was taking a long period, and by then, too much damage had been caused. The DWS had to find a way to relook at its regulations while its administrative justice remained fair so that there were no disasters like in the Free State, or ongoing pollution that would impact the environment and livelihoods.

The input that was made regarding Hartbeespoort would find the ministry engaged with all the municipalities and SALGA. The municipalities of Gauteng should stop the pollution -- they had the licence to discharge. If they were discharging in Hartbeespoort in terms of the system, they should discharge effluent that met the standards.

While the DWS was going to support municipalities with their wastewater treatment works, on the side of regulation, it would use the carrot and stick approach and arrest those who violated them. The costs were ultimately being paid by the taxpayer, because government was spending a lot of money to do remediation or rehabilitation at Hartbeespoort alone over all these years. This was a reactionary approach, and creating jobs in the process had no impact. Government had spent over a billion rand which could have been used for other things to change the course of history. His attitude was that it was wasting money because it should stop the pollution from where it originated. While it was being stopped, like what was happening in Emfuleni, the system could be cleaned. In cleaning the system, he agreed that it should create jobs.

The programme on working for water had unfortunately been taken away from the Department and given to the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (DFFE), and it was now working together with them. In his interaction with the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for environmental affairs in the North West, there had been an agreement that the programme would be up-scaled. This would create an opportunity for small businesses and enterprises the Department should encourage. He had heard Mr Tseki on the production of charcoal from algae, and would get those details. The DWS needed to get new technologies on what kind of economies it could produce. The issue of charcoal and hydrogen energy that could be produced using the biomass spoken of by Mr Tseki had safety issues, which was the biggest problem. There was a lot of debris entering the system, and the Department should be able to clean it. It would consider occupational health and safety, including working with the police.

The report on the integrity assessment of the dams was going to be important. The Department's attitude was that there were too many dams, containment dams, ponds, fine-tailing storage facilities. It should prioritise them, otherwise there would be disasters. If there was too much rain and flooding into those systems, the DWS should be able to assure South Africans that those dam walls would not collapse.

At Emfuleni, the relationships had improved. There was a time when the workers there had stopped the projects because they were worried their jobs would be taken. The Department's attitude was that, for the sustainability of the project, capacity building at Rand Water was important, so the training of people at Metsi-a-lekoa was a priority. Some of the people had been trained with the support of the Department and Rand Water.  

There were challenges involving money that needed to be discussed, and where Rand Water worked, there were issues of operation and maintenance that the institution itself should maintain. At the same time, the DWS should support them. There was no intention by the Department to stay involved forever; its intervention would be to fix the infrastructure for the next three to five years. After that, it needed to be able to leave, because the municipalities were still under Section 139(1)(b), hence its ability to use Section 63.

Concerning pollution, Deputy Minister Mahlobo said South Africa should be aware that too much damage was caused by human activity. This included mining, agriculture and municipalities. The Department would be clamping down, irrespective of who was polluting. He assured Mr Hendricks that nothing was wrong with the legislation -- it was very sufficient and could be applied, but there was a need to increase its capacity to do enforcement. At the same time, there was also a need to increase the capacity for self-regulation.

Those who held the Department’s water licence should respect its conditions. This was why it had re-introduced the "Blue Drop" and "Green Drop"  not only as an incentive, but as an instrument in the hands of those water use licence holders to improve their efficiency.

Looking at the question of the reclamation of water, it was using the brown economy, because South Africa was not going to run out of water -- but it could run out of water that was fit for use. The question of usable water was based on the deterioration of water quality over time. It should be able to reverse the tide and use the technologies and solutions available. These would be obtained through its Water Research Commission and the universities. Ultimately, communities should never be left behind, because if the behaviour around the question of water did not change, the situation would become worse. It could learn from the example of Cape Town, where communities had changed their behaviour. When this happened, the interventions by government saw the results. Nelson Mandela Bay also saw changes happening because of behavioural changes in the communities. If communities played their part, government would do what it was supposed to, because it was a government that should respond.

Mr Frans Moatshe, Acting Chief Financial Officer, DWS, responded to the question on spending posed by Ms Mohlala, and confirmed that overall, for the past financial year, there had been a total provision of R397 million that was going be transferred to Rand Water in three tranches. It had received the first amount of R100 million, which had been spent, and had received the second instalment of R100 million, which was based on the priority work. Half of this instalment had been committed to contracts and tenders that had been awarded for security, tools of trade and maintenance of the plants and water treatment works. He provided a detailed breakdown that showed the expenditure to date.

Mr Petrus Venter, DWS, answered the question a cost breakdown had been requested of the specifics of the programme during the ten-year period, and said that in the progress reports produced during and after the programme, there had been a very detailed cost breakdown. Over the ten-year period from 2006 to 2016, the total expenditure for the programme was much more than the dam basin activities that had been presented. Regarding waste discharge, the DWS had started with the development of the online registration system, which had been rolled out nationally, and was starting to fast-track waste discharge and the polluter pay principle. The cost of this programme was intended to be recovered from the polluters. Many components were attached to it, but the total cost was R186 million over ten years, or R18.6 million per year. Monthly payments were between R1 million and R1.8 million. The full-time contract workers at the end of the programme amounted to 115, and their total monthly salaries were between R550 000 and R800 000. The cost of hyacinth removal in the entire programme had been R20 million.
 
Ms Sizani Moshidi, Chief Director, DWS, referred to the issue of the stakeholders, and said that because the programme had suffered from start-stop situations, the few that had advised it had urged it to focus on more than the economic regulations, and to look at the broader water regulations. As it moved to institutionalisation, it was anticipated that the Commission would finalise the business case and legislative review. It would go through another sector consultation that would gain more guidance from the users. She accepted the recommendation that it needed to create some community awareness and address issues of improving access.

The revision of the pricing strategy would allow it to do the multi-year tariff setting. Once approved and it got its legislation right, it should have a fair window for consulting Parliament before the tariffs were approved.  

Follow-up discussion
 
Ms Sihlwayi said one of the issues was very important for the Committee. The reason communities were not getting involved in some of the technical issues was because the Department did not create a very tangible programme for them to participate in. The issue of advocacy was fine, but until when? Could the Committee receive a presentation from the Department on how it would involve the communities in addressing issues of pollution, structurally as a job creation process? It was very important that the people were not taken for granted. Public participation was not having an impact because there was nothing tangible for them to engage with.

Deputy Minister Mahlobo said the Department would return to the Committee with a proposal.

The Chairperson said that Ms Sihlwayi was still on the platform and had not finished speaking. They were still within the time allocated to the Portfolio Committee, then she would grant him an opportunity to respond, with respect.

Ms Sihlwayi said she wanted to know if her proposal was well understood. She was raising this emphatically because the Committee was not getting the answers it would like. When employing five or six people to do a job, the entire community should be involved and have a buy-in, because they were being recognised and giving dignity to the programme. It should be clear that the issue of advocacy was not being generalised.

Follow-up response

Deputy Minister Mahlobo apologised to the Chairperson for interrupting Ms Sihlwayi. There was agreement on the guidance the Department received from the Committee as its leadership, around capacity building and leaving no communities behind. This included job creation. It had also learned from the Committee about certain available technologies so that the waste found in the river system could be converted into wealth. It had taken note of this, and would go back and revise its presentation and have certain strategies.

There had been other aspects mentioned by the leadership regarding environmental management and pollution. It would work with its partners, especially the DFFE, including the provinces. It would also work with non-governmental organisations (NGOs), environmental organisations and community-based organisations involved in these issues. The strategy of public participation would include civic education and awareness. The Department looked to change behaviour, because it needed to produce more water champions, not only for young people, but also among senior citizens.

Ms Pietersen asked how the Department was addressing the question of alternative housing in informal settlements along the river. She had heard Mr Venter say the informal settlement's water got polluted, and so did the river. Nobody had addressed the provision of alternative housing for those people.

Deputy Minister Mahlobo suggested that the Department be allowed to return to the Portfolio Committee with an answer to this question. The team could not respond, because it had everything to do with integrated human settlements. The DWS did not have the details, but was aware that the department in Gauteng was working on it. It could pass on the message.

For its part, the matter the DWS should address going forward with local authorities was the encroachment of development into flood plains or riverbeds. With the associated human activity, it could see communities were already inside the flood plains. Although the issue of human settlements had been raised, there were also safety issues. For instance, there was the KZN example where infrastructure and lives could be lost. The issue had been encroachment, where people were within the flood plains.

There was even a new phenomenon around human settlements. People were building on the major pipelines. These pipelines were big and contained high volumes of water and high pressure; if anything happened to them, people could die or be victims of a flood. This included the zama zama’s (illegal miners), but the issues of encroachment and being in the flood plains or riverbeds could be discussed at a later stage. This happened only around these informal settlements -- even in areas of traditional leaders.

The challenges around land use, the water systems and rivers should form part of climate change management, and the impact such as flooding. One day the government would find itself being accused of not doing its part.

Closing remarks

Deputy Minister Magadzi said it was important that as the DWS conducted outreach work, either in its constituencies or as political parties, it had to speak about the issues with the communities. It was very important to address issues of erosion, sedimentation, solid waste, and management of its water resources. If it did not, it would be highly challenged by finding that it would have water scarcity in the future.

What had also become very important was that it should start engaging its communities on revenue collection. These important things assisted the municipalities and the Department in delivering clean water to communities. One of the Committee Members spoke about advocacy issues, and she agreed it needed advocacy programmes that could empower communities. The labour unions in the DWS had said it was important to factor in the process of having its communities as part of the Department's academy. The working for water and working for fire programmes of the Department involved working with and capacitating the communities. As it conducted its operations and maintenance, it became important that the communities were able to benefit from the work it was doing. When doing maintenance, it should have communities being capacitated so that in the end, they could benefit.

As a Department, it wanted to work with NGOs, and its Water Services Authority and SALGA were working closely together to ensure it was not operating in isolation. This would help to deal with the challenges. It was important that the issue of advocacy was not only a departmental one.

In some areas, encroachment into wells and springs caused damage to the systems. Because the Hartbeespoort pollution came from upstream and affected several catchments as it went downstream, the DWS should deal with the algae. There were so many unwanted things, like tyres, that were thrown into the rivers. The Hartbeespoort Dam centenary celebration should be used to engage with the communities to say where they were, and the way forward.

The DWS was learning from the Rand Water programme, and was evolving as a department. It looked forward to innovating as it did its job, not just being a Department of Water and Sanitation. It wanted to do research and grow the Department. At the centre of growth, innovation, research and development should be something that could grow the economy and capacitate South Africans both internally and externally. She said every time the DWS came to the Committee, it became better and wanted to show its appreciation. It grew in stature, decision-making and thinking.

The meeting was adjourned.