JOHANNESBURG, Gauteng — As local elections approach, the true cost of municipal water is coming under intense scrutiny, revealing a stark disparity in how different communities access and pay for this essential resource. According to Mahlatse Rampedi, a sociologist, urban resource governance analyst, and researcher at PARI, a recent draft report highlights that the financial burden of water extends far beyond the monthly municipal bill, disproportionately affecting poorer households through a severe “poverty premium.”
The Link Between the Ballot Box and the Tap
The connection between municipal elections and basic service delivery is far more direct than the public realizes. When citizens vote, they elect councilors who form the municipal council. This council is tasked with making critical decisions regarding municipal governance, the allocation of public funds, and the prioritization of infrastructure projects.
These political decisions dictate whether a community receives reliable water services. Councilors and municipalities must determine how much budget to allocate toward repairing aging pipes, maintaining reservoirs, and extending infrastructure to historically unconnected communities that still rely on water tankers.
When infrastructure fails, accountability becomes a complex issue. Municipalities carry the primary responsibility for planning, financing, and delivering water services, while the national government oversees broader policy frameworks, national standards, and regulatory oversight. In cities like Johannesburg, entity-specific bodies like Johannesburg Water handle the operational functions on behalf of the municipality.
Rampedi emphasizes the need to distinguish between operational responsibility and political accountability. While the municipal provider must respond to burst pipes, residents should not be forced to choose between holding the utility provider or their elected councilors accountable; both hold distinct but intertwined responsibilities within the same system.
The “Poverty Premium” of Water Tariffs
A major focus of the draft report is the inequity in municipal water tariffs and how a household’s location dictates the true cost of their water. Municipal tariffs generally utilize a stepped structure, where a basic allocation of water is provided for free—a policy introduced in the early 2000s—with consumption above that level charged at increasing rates.
However, the experience of this policy varies drastically based on delivery methods. Households with formal connections and meters can easily track their consumption and verify that they are receiving their free basic allocation. Conversely, households in informal settlements without meters or in-home taps, who rely entirely on communal water tanks, cannot verify how much water they actually receive.
When these communal tanks run dry, residents are forced to buy water from alternative sources or travel vast distances to access their basic allocation. The research highlights a staggering financial disparity: buying water informally costs around 10 rand for 20 liters. This translates to approximately 500 rand per 1,000 liters (one kiloliter).
By comparison, households within the formal municipal structure pay between 29 and 34 rand per kiloliter, depending on their metering category. Consequently, residents in informal settlements end up paying 15 to 17 times more for their water. Rampedi identifies this exponential cost difference as the “poverty premium,” where poorer households are penalized financially simply because public service infrastructure in their areas is less reliable.
The Hidden Human and Economic Costs
The cost of water insecurity transcends financial bills, inflicting a heavy human toll characterized by lost time, mental labor, and compromised health. Rampedi notes that water insecurity affects virtually every aspect of daily life.
Residents are forced to plan their lives around unpredictable water shortages, living with constant uncertainty. This burden delays economic mobility; some individuals postpone job hunting while waiting for water, while others struggle to sustain small township businesses, such as car washes and food vendors, resulting in massive opportunity costs.
The impact on vulnerable populations is particularly severe. Early Childhood Development (ECD) centers operating without water face profound implications for children’s education, health, and safety. Furthermore, individuals with disabilities living in communities reliant on water tanks face extremely demanding physical and logistical challenges. Ultimately, water insecurity strips communities of time and economic opportunities, making ordinary daily activities disproportionately difficult.
Building a Fairer Water System
As the draft report continues to take shape, it offers a blueprint for a fairer water system ahead of the local government elections. Rampedi suggests that a truly equitable system must first improve the reliability of existing provisions by investing in permanent infrastructure, thereby reducing the dependency on water tankers.
A fair system must also guarantee the consistent delivery of the minimum 6 kiloliters per month—a target many municipalities currently struggle to meet. Furthermore, the system must recognize and accommodate the additional access barriers faced by households due to disability, financial constraints, age, geography, or specific household circumstances.
Crucially, a fair framework must measure affordability based on what households actually spend to secure water, rather than just looking at the figures on municipal accounts. By doing so, the system can ensure that poorer households are no longer forced to pay a hidden penalty for residing in communities with inadequate infrastructure, ultimately limiting the additional costs of accessing consistent, safe water.
