Updates on Giyani Bulk Water Project & Bucket Eradication Programme; Committee Reports on DWS Quarterly Performance; with Ministry

Meeting report

Committee Matters

Before the meeting officially commenced at 9:00, the Committee dealt with internal business. The Committee Researcher mentioned that a Member suggested including a recommendation explaining how unmet targets would be achieved and what challenges had been faced. He pointed out that in the Fourth Quarter Expenditure Report tables, the last column already outlined how the missed targets would be addressed, which partially covered this concern. However, he agreed the resolution could be strengthened to reflect the Committee’s concerns about the unachieved targets.

On the issue of Water Debt Recovery, the Committee Researcher understood the need for a strong recommendation, and he noted that the evening's meeting with National Treasury, in addition to discussing the metropolitan system, would address water debt. He suggested that after Treasury's input, the Committee would be better positioned to make resolutions that would assist departments, municipalities, and water entities with debt recovery. He acknowledged that the current resolution on debt recovery lacked sufficient information, but anticipated that this would be remedied in the upcoming meeting giving the Committee a clearer understanding of the situation.

In reference to the Amatola Water Board issue, the Committee Researcher stated that the Chairperson had already addressed it. He mentioned Mr S Dithebe's (ANC) comments on water debt, where Mr Dithebe pointed out that the issue was not purely financial but also involved poor governance, using Matjhabeng Local Municipality as an example. The Committee Researcher encouraged Mr Dithebe to add a resolution to strengthen the content, noting that the report was still open for additions and that Members could submit their input for inclusion.

The Chairperson thanked the Committee Researcher and asked Mr Dithebe if he had anything else to add.

Mr Dithebe responded that he wanted to clarify a point he had raised earlier concerning the number of villages receiving water. He was unsure whether it was nine or 25 villages and sought clarification, mentioning that water was sourced from the Nandoni Dam and involved both raw and treated water pipelines.

The Chairperson asked the Committee Researcher to address the question and then called upon the EFF to add their input.

Members reiterated the Committee's concern, particularly regarding the delay in water provision to 25 villages which had been promised by the end of March. It was noted that only nine villages were now receiving water, and the delay continued to frustrate the Committee. The implementation of the Interministerial Task Team was supported but it was emphasised that it should engage directly with municipalities to ensure accountability. Further, the Member highlighted the need for stakeholder engagement to include marginalised communities and emphasised that water management should focus not only on financial recovery but also on enhancing community participation.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee adopt the report with the amendments proposed by Mr Dithebe and Mr Manungufala. He also asked Mr Dithebe to forward his recommendations for inclusion.

A Member clarified that 24 villages had reported receiving water and noted that further information would be obtained in the evening meeting. He confirmed that the Committee could adopt the report with the condition that the proposed additions would be made.

Another Member expressed concern about resolution Number One, which dealt with engagement with the South African Local Government Association (SALGA), stating that it lacked clarity. She criticised the delay in engaging with the Department of Rural Development, arguing that it made the Portfolio Committee appear ineffective. She called for the report to be rephrased to ensure that SALGA could present to the Committee to scrutinise its work and ensure that municipalities paid their dues.

The Chairperson agreed to rephrase the report accordingly.

Mr Dithebe suggested using grammar-checking software like Grammarly to streamline the editing process and avoid wasting time during report discussions.

The Chairperson supported this suggestion and asked the Committee Researcher to consider it. The Chairperson then concluded this part of the discussion, thanking the Members for their contributions and teamwork, and suggested they take a short break before continuing with the next agenda item.

[official start of the meeting]

The Chairperson welcomed everyone present, including the Ministry and the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), specifically acknowledging the Director-General, Dr Sean Phillips and his team. He also noted the attendance of representatives from the District Municipalities and wondered aloud whether Provincial Heads of Department from the Northern Cape and Free State would be present.

He then expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to deal with the reports promptly, emphasising that the Committee wanted to start on time and avoid any delays. For those who had not attended before, he explained that there would be time allocated for presentations, and that the three scheduled presentations had been given one hour in total. He urged the presenters not to take up too much time, so that all presentations could be covered, and clarified that they did not need to read the reports out loud, as the Committee had already reviewed them in advance. Instead, he suggested that they highlight key points to allow the Committee to ask questions and follow up with both the Department and the Minister.

He acknowledged that one of the presentations had been submitted late. He stressed the importance of adhering to the deadlines provided, noting that the Committee expected presentations to be in by 16:00 on Wednesday. Receiving updated reports, the day before the meeting was something the Chairperson requested they avoid in future. He urged everyone to respect the Committee's deadlines.

To conclude, the Chairperson mentioned that they would begin the session with a moment of silence, meditation, or prayer before handing over to the first speaker.

Apologies

The Committee Secretary reported that there were three apologies: from Ms N Webster (BOSA), Mr N Nxumalo (MK), and Deputy Minister of Water and Sanitation, Mr Isaac Seitlholo, who would join the meeting a bit later due to attending another Committee in the morning.

Minister’s opening remarks
Minister of Water and Sanitation, Ms Pemmy Majodina, expressed her gratitude to the Chairperson, the Deputy Minister, Members of the Portfolio Committee, and the team. She acknowledged the opportunity to provide an update, specifically focusing on the Giyani Bulk Water Project. This project, she explained, was one of the Department of Water and Sanitation’s long-delayed initiatives having been initiated in 2009. Only recently did the project reach a stage where water was flowing to households, with completion now in sight.

Minister Majodina highlighted the primary causes of the delays, attributing them to a lack of integrated planning by the Department and corruption within the Lepelle Northern Water Board, which affected both the planning and construction phases. She stated that both issues were being addressed. In particular, the Department had shifted its approach to planning bulk water projects, now ensuring that these projects were designed with a comprehensive plan to take water directly to households, unlike in the past.

She mentioned further that the corruption issues were still under investigation by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), following a Presidential Proclamation in 2016. The SIU had initiated criminal litigation to recover funds from service providers and made several disciplinary referrals, one of which led to the resignation of the former CEO. Additionally, one Water Board Manager had been charged and dismissed.

The Minister went on to explain that the Giyani Water Project aimed to improve access to water moving from communal taps to household connections which they referred to as “yard connections.” However, she pointed out that the old water supply system in Giyani had not been well-maintained by the Municipality, which provided unreliable service. Due to insufficient natural water in the area, the project required the construction of a 40-kilometre pipeline from the Nandoni Dam near Thohoyandou in the Vhenda District to transport raw water to Giyani, which involved installing the pipeline and reticulation infrastructure.

She added that the project was being implemented as a partnership between the Department of Water and Sanitation, Lepelle Northern Water, and the Mopani District Municipality with the Department playing the leading role. She acknowledged that the Lebalelo Water User Association had also assisted with procurement processes for the project.

Minister Majodina then detailed a recent visit to the project on 06 September 2024, where she, along with the Deputy Ministers, toured the site. They visited various sections, including the completed additional pumps at the dam, the new pipeline’s starting point, and the refurbished water treatment works. She shared that they witnessed water flowing through the new bulk supply and reticulation pipeline into people’s yards.

During the visit with the Deputy President, the Minister stated that they also met with traditional leaders from Vhembe and Mopani. One concern these leaders raised was the lack of water supply to communities near the dam. In response, Lepelle Northern Water appointed a contractor to upgrade the capacity of the Nandoni water treatment works, which would enable water supply to these surrounding communities.

Additionally, the Vhembe District Municipality was preparing technical reports to apply for grant funding to supply 20 villages with water from the upgraded Nandoni treatment plant. The Minister noted that contractors were hard at work on the reticulation project in Giyani aiming to provide yard connections to over 30 000 households across 55 targeted villages within the next two years.

She concluded by noting that the water services component of the project would cost approximately R5.5 billion. Given the scale of the reticulation effort, it could not be completed in a short period. Minister Majodina offered this overview and informed the Members that the forthcoming presentation would delve deeper into the project’s details. He thanked the Chairperson and Members for their attention.

Status of the Giyani Water Project as of September 2024

Dr Sean Phillips, Director-General, DWS, outlined the presentation, emphasising that the project in question involved transferring water from Nandoni Dam - which was part of the Luvuvhu catchment - to Giyani. The original planning aimed to supply water to Vhembe District Municipality, Mopani District Municipality, and the northern parts of Capricorn District Municipality.

Dr Phillips proceeded to discuss the Nandoni water system supply area explaining that both Mopani and Vhembe District Municipalities were part of the original plan to receive water from the dam. He highlighted the delays in the Giyani project, particularly in constructing the bulk water pipeline from Nandoni Dam to Nsami Dam in Giyani. These delays were attributed to poor planning and corruption within the Lepelle Northern Water Board. However, the Department has since addressed these issues by integrating bulk planning and reticulation efforts.

He noted that the existing water supply system in Giyani, partly fed by boreholes and water from the Nsami Dam, has been unreliable due to poor maintenance, and its design is based on outdated Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) standards. The Giyani Bulk Water Project aims to upgrade this system by providing household connections instead of communal standpipes and ensuring consistent and reliable water supply.

Dr Phillips then described the progress of the project. The 40km bulk pipeline from Nandoni Dam to Nsami Dam and the necessary pumping stations have been completed. Additionally, there are plans to upgrade the water treatment works in Giyani to handle the increased demand. Phase 1 of the refurbishment of these works has been completed. Phase 2 will involve upgrading the plant to increase its capacity to 40 megalitres per day, at an estimated cost of R110 million.

He also mentioned that a parallel pipeline has been constructed to provide treated water to communities in Vhembe. This pipeline is operational, but a separate project is underway to upgrade the water treatment works at Nandoni Dam to ensure sufficient clean water is available. The project, implemented by Lepelle Northern Water with assistance from the Development Bank of Southern Africa, is progressing. Vhembe District Municipality is preparing technical reports to secure funding for reticulation from the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG).

Returning to the Giyani project, Dr Phillips highlighted that the refurbishment of the Giyani water treatment works has been completed, enabling it to operate at its design capacity. However, an additional upgrade to the plant will be necessary to supply all 55 villages and 30 000 households with household connections.

He provided an overview of the large-scale bulk infrastructure being constructed, including pipelines, reservoirs, and pumping stations. A total of 325 kilometres of bulk pipelines are being installed, with 74% of the work already completed, and the remainder set for completion by March 2025. The bulk infrastructure work is estimated to cost R2 billion and is being carried out by Lepelle Northern Water and the DWS construction units.

Dr Phillips then discussed the reticulation phase of the project, explaining that it has been divided into two phases. The first phase involves reticulating 24 villages, at an estimated cost of R1.3 billion funded through the Water Services Infrastructure Grant. Mopani District Municipality appointed 37 contractors for this work with nine villages already completed. Phase 1 is expected to reach overall completion by December 2024. Phase 2 will involve reticulating the remaining villages and is planned for the 2025/26 financial year at a cost of R2.2 billion.

Dr Phillips presented images of the progress made over the past two years, showcasing the construction of the bulk pipelines, reservoirs, river crossings, and the canal that feeds water from the pipeline into the Nsami Dam. He concluded by highlighting the refurbishment work done at the Giyani water treatment works, showing that it is now fully functional. Finally, he displayed photographs of the completed household connections in several villages, illustrating the successful implementation of the project.

[See attached for full presentation]

Giyani Water Supply Progress

Opening remarks by the Executive Mayor

Councillor Pule Shayi, Executive Mayor, Mopani District Municipality, noted that the presentation led by the Director-General had content similar to what his team would present. He expressed appreciation to the Department of Water and Sanitation for appointing the Municipality as an implementing agent. However, he acknowledged that such a large project was bound to create some frustrations among the local communities. A proactive approach has been adopted to manage these by establishing a multi-stakeholder forum. This forum, which included local chiefs, businesses, civil society, and community structures, met monthly to prevent any project stoppages. Cllr Shayi confirmed that a water treatment plant had been completed and was operating at full capacity, emphasising that it had been upgraded to meet the needs of a growing population over the next 24 years. He mentioned that nine communities were already receiving water and highlighted the coordination between the DWS and the Municipality to ensure the pipeline and reticulation work were aligned. He also projected that the project would be completed by early December 2024. Following his remarks, he handed over to Mr Ludic Mahayi, Senior Manager: Technical Services.

Presentation

Mr Ludic Mahayi, Senior Manager: Technical Services,  Mopani District Municipality, outlined the Municipality's responsibility for water supply across five local municipalities: Greater Tzaneen, Maruleng, Ba-Phalaborwa, Greater Letaba, and Greater Giyani. He addressed the significant challenges faced by Giyani communities, including water shortages stemming from drought, ageing infrastructure, and damaged asbestos pipes.

To combat these issues, Mr Mahayi detailed various interventions. These included the construction of a new raw water pipeline for the Giyani Water Treatment Works at a cost of R778 million, refurbishing the treatment plant with a budget of R45 million, and repairing 325 kilometres of old asbestos pipelines, which would cost R320 million. Additionally, the Municipality initiated the construction of internal water reticulations for 24 villages as part of Phase 1, with Phase 2 set to follow.

Providing a progress update, Mr Mahayi confirmed that the raw water pipeline project is now complete. However, he noted the necessity of protecting the canal from contamination with a temporary fence installed while planning for a long-term solution. The refurbishment of the Giyani Water Treatment Works has also been completed, allowing the plant to operate at its full design capacity of 30 megalitres per day, with plans for further upgrades to increase this to 40 megalitres per day. He expressed confidence that demand would be met once both phases of the village reticulations are finished. Notably, after the refurbishment, water production improved significantly, and water-shedding in completed areas has been eliminated.

In his presentation, Mr Mahayi shared images demonstrating the work accomplished, including the pump station at Nandoni and the water canal before and after the fencing project. He reiterated that despite the progress, completing the bulk pipeline construction and the handover process is critical for ensuring long-term water security in the region.

He then highlighted the ongoing construction of dissolution pipelines to connect treatment networks to villages benefitting approximately 31 000 households across 55 villages. Although there have been delays with the bulk lines, a subcontractor appointed in July aimed to expedite construction, with completion expected by December 2024 and a final handover planned for March 2025.

Mr Mahayi concluded by addressing future interventions particularly the need for groundwater development to address water shortages in Giyani. He indicated that R200 million is needed to refurbish existing water supply lines. He mentioned that since 2010 demand has been projected to reach 58 million litres per day, necessitating long-term strategies including potential transfers from nearby rivers to improve supply.

He also noted a historical issue regarding non-functional water treatment works, indicating that an investigation had cleared officials of wrongdoing, but the Municipality is pursuing recovery of costs from the engineer and contractor responsible for defective components.

[See attached for full presentation]

Discussion

Ms R Mohlala (EFF) began her inquiries by acknowledging the presence of the Mayor of the Mopani District Municipality, which had been a challenge during previous oversight visits. She stressed the need for collaboration between the Municipality, Lepelle Northern Water Board and the Department of Water and Sanitation to meet water supply targets, highlighting ongoing water issues in Giyani and the necessity for more effective communication and coordination.

She referenced a prior meeting where the MMC: Water and Sanitation, Vhembe District Municipality, mentioned compiling a technical report to facilitate water access to different communities, questioning the progress on this report and expressing frustration at its repeated mention without clear advancements.

Ms Mohlala also raised concerns about the previously damaged asbestos pipelines and sought clarification on whether the repairs discussed were related to those earlier projects. She urged for an investigation into the issues surrounding past contracts, seeking accountability for the delays and inefficiencies.

Mr Mahayi said that there were significant challenges faced by Giyani communities, including water shortages stemming from drought, ageing infrastructure, and damaged asbestos pipes.

Mr Mahayi detailed various interventions to combat these issues. These included the construction of a new raw water pipeline for the Giyani Water Treatment Works at a cost of R778 million, refurbishing the treatment plant with a budget of R45 million, and repairing 325 kilometres of old asbestos pipelines which would cost R320 million. Additionally, the Municipality initiated the construction of internal water reticulations for 24 villages as part of Phase 1.

She concluded her queries by addressing the ongoing water shortages in Giyani at the Middle Letaba Dam due to raw water shortages. She asked how the Mopani District Municipality could justify the effectiveness of its current interventions especially given the recent slight improvement in the raw water supply. She sought assurance regarding the sustainability of these solutions, particularly considering the projected future demand of 58 million megalitres per day by 2040. Lastly, she inquired about contingency plans should current projects fail to meet their deadlines. She expressed concern over the promised water supply for 24 villages and the delays in delivering this essential service.

Mr Mahayi made it clear that all technical reports for Mopani, especially those for Phase 2, had already been completed and submitted to the Department. He emphasised that there were no outstanding technical reports still to be developed for the reticulation of the 55 villages.

Moving on to the issue of asbestos pipes, Mr Mahayi pointed out that the problem lay with the old system, which frequently experienced pipe bursts due to the pressure caused by the fully optimised and refurbished Sunny Water Works. He explained that during refurbishments, it was essential to remove the old networks, particularly illegal connections, which were not installed properly and led to distribution losses. To fix this, they had to replace all old pipes with new ones ensuring the system was leak-free.

Mr Mahayi then spoke about the yard connections they were installing making sure each one was done correctly to prevent leaks in the future. On the topic of the Middle Letaba Dam, he referred to his earlier presentation outlining short-term solutions such as drilling and equipping boreholes to handle groundwater issues. Meanwhile, long-term plans were in the works, including a proposal for sourcing water from the Levuvhu River.

Addressing the urgency of project completion, Mr Mahayi noted that many of the projects were set to finish between September 2024 and May 2025. Delays in certain areas were caused by extra work being added, and extensions of time were granted to contractors under the terms of their contracts. However, he assured the Committee that the Giyani Water Services bulk project, which includes pipelines like Pipeline D, was on track. This pipeline would supply several villages, and once the construction ramped up, seven villages would be connected right away. He wrapped up by handing the floor to his colleagues.

Cllr Shayi then spoke about the cooperation between the Mopani District, Lepelle Northern Water, and the Department of Water and Sanitation. He stressed the importance of aligning efforts between these bodies, particularly regarding water reticulation at the household level. While Lepelle Northern Water worked on the main pipelines, the district was responsible for connecting water to individual households. Weekly technical meetings were being held to make sure the pipelines and household connections were finished at the same time. This collaboration proved effective, helping speed up progress and protect the infrastructure from vandalism.

Mr Risimati Mathye, Deputy Director-General: Water Services Management, DWS, then responded to two key questions. First, he addressed the abandoned pipeline at Nandoni Dam explaining that the pipeline had initially been left unused due to an investigation by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU). However, some of these pipelines were now being used for projects like the Nzhelele Canal and the Nandoni relocation project. Despite the initial abandonment, the pipelines were still in good condition and had found a new purpose in current construction efforts.

Mr Mathye also discussed the technical reports, highlighting the work being done to upgrade the Nandoni Water Treatment Works from 60 megalitres to 120 megalitres. He clarified that while some reticulation projects were being funded by the Department’s Water Services Infrastructure Grant (WSIG), the Vhembe District had submitted a technical report to the provincial treasury to secure additional funding. He estimated that funding for these projects should be available in the next financial year, which would align with the Department’s upgrades at Nandoni. Lastly, he reassured the Committee that raw water augmentation from Nandoni to Giyani would address the water shortages in that area.

The Chairperson jumped in with a follow-up question seeking clarity on how the transition between the Giyani project and new projects was being managed administratively especially regarding the use of new pipes and how the work was transferred from one project to the next. He directed this question to the Director-General for further explanation.

Ms Mohlala raised a follow-up question seeking clarity on the technical report related to the Vhembe Municipality. While acknowledging that Mr Mathye had responded earlier, she expressed concern over the recurring mention of the technical report. During previous visits, officials mentioned they were working on it, and even today, the status remains unchanged. Her frustration was palpable as she asked for a clear update: "How far are they with this report? What progress has been made? What has been approved?" She wanted to avoid a situation where the same explanation about the technical report would be provided at future meetings without tangible outcomes. Her pointed question aimed to uncovering exactly what had been achieved from this elusive technical report.

The Chairperson responded by suggesting that the Mopani District present the Committee with a full report within 14 days in conjunction with the Department of Water and Sanitation. He asked if this arrangement would satisfy the Member and requested the Department to provide a report from Vhembe Municipality to clarify the issue. He expressed gratitude before moving on.

Mr Mathye then addressed the Chairperson’s request regarding the pipelines, explaining that the SIU had initially looked into them as part of an investigation into the engineering standards used. He explained that when the project first began, many of the pipelines had not met design standards leading to their abandonment. However, with the repurposing of the project, new pipelines were laid based on the correct design parameters. While the original pipelines could not be used for their intended purpose, they were later utilised for projects like the Nzhelele Canal and Relocation initiatives avoiding wasteful expenditure. He added that the SIU was pursuing the recovery of funds with LTE Consulting (Pty) Ltd, the company involved.

Shifting to the technical reports, Mr Mathye outlined the process. Vhembe District submits technical reports to the Department for evaluation and alignment with the DWS's bulk infrastructure planning. Once the DWS completes its assessment, the reports are returned to the Municipality, which then submits them to the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) for funding. He informed the Committee that the Department had already completed its evaluation of the reports submitted by Vhembe. COGTA now had the responsibility to confirm the funding and provide further details, such as how many households would benefit and the extent of the pipeline. He confirmed that these issues would be covered in the full report that would be provided within 14 days, as requested.

Mr Mathye concluded by addressing the upgrade of the Nandoni Water Treatment Works stating that this would provide additional water supply to the surrounding communities. He noted that this project, linked to the same technical report in question and was set to commence in January next year and was fully funded by the Department. He assured the Committee that the project was at an advanced stage with Lepelle Northern Water acting as the implementing agent.

Mr K Ramaila (ANC) began by acknowledging the DWS's efforts. He noted that the Giyani Bulk project had been a longstanding challenge for the country but expressed optimism. He specifically praised the work done in municipalities and villages, mentioning the village where former President Zuma launched the project, and emphasised his appreciation for the ongoing efforts.***

Moving on to his questions, Mr Ramaila first inquired whether the DWS had developed any mechanisms to expedite project implementation, particularly in cases where contractors fell behind schedule. He was concerned about delays and sought to understand the DWS's strategies for addressing such issues.

His second question related to the DWS's earlier report on construction progress. He highlighted a specific project with a weighted average progress rate of only 1.26% per month which was considered very poor. He wanted to know if this construction unit was subject to the General Conditions of Contract (GCC). If it was, he asked what actions the Department was taking to address the poor performance and hold the contractors accountable. However, if the unit was not subject to the GCC, he queried what alternative mechanisms were in place to assess the unit's performance. Lastly, Mr Ramaila asked whether the construction unit was subject to competitive supply chain processes in terms of its appointment, hinting at concerns over whether the proper procedures were being followed in selecting contractors.

Mr Mahayi addressed the Chairperson regarding the slow progress of the project stating that an acceleration plan had been implemented with a revised programme of works that contractors were now following. He mentioned that weekly intervention meetings were being held to closely monitor progress, and expressed confidence that the project would be delivered within the specified timeframe.

Minister Majodina acknowledged the desire to speed up the project but emphasised that its completion depended on budget constraints. She noted that, given the delays, the project should have already been completed, but the lack of sufficient resources had caused the work to be staggered. She referenced previous comments on the progress, noting that although 24 villages were initially expected to receive water, currently only 9 were benefitting. However, she remained hopeful that the project would soon be completed.

She explained that the involvement of the Deputy President, Mr Paul Mashatile, was intended to seek additional funds and ensure the project's completion. The Minister concluded by expressing appreciation for the opportunity to share the project's status and challenges.

Deputy Minister of Water and Sanitation, Mr David Mahlobo, expressed his gratitude and affirmed that the Minister had already covered most of the relevant aspects. He highlighted that both the Minister and the Deputy President were heavily involved in overseeing the acceleration plan. He acknowledged the long-standing water shortages that the affected communities had faced and noted some improvements, particularly from the Mayor, as certain contracts were behind schedule while others had progressed.

The Deputy Minister assured the Committee that the DWS, under the Minister’s guidance, would continue reviewing the situation to find faster solutions. He admitted that the timelines stretching to 2025 or 2026 were concerning, but believed regular updates and guidance from the Chairperson could help move things forward.

Dr Phillips added that the construction unit is part of the DWS and, therefore does not go through open competitive tendering processes. However, the construction unit is still required to complete a bill of quantities and prices projects accordingly. He confirmed that the GCC was applied, and if the construction unit failed to perform, the DWS had in the past terminated its services. He acknowledged challenges with the unit’s efficiency, which were largely due to government procurement processes, but noted that a new infrastructure procurement policy was being implemented to streamline these procedures. He also mentioned that the Department had implemented training programmes and secured support from engineering associations, including retired private sector contractors, to advise and improve the management of construction projects.

Mr Ramalia raised concerns about the performance of Mopani, specifically concerning the slow progress of the construction unit, which was delivering at a rate of only 1% per month. While he appreciated the explanation from Dr Phillips, he remained worried about the unsatisfactory pace of the project but hoped the proposed improvements would yield better results.

Ms M Kobe (Action SA) began by extending her greetings and appreciation to both the Department and the Municipality for their comprehensive presentations. She expressed her gratitude for the progress being made, noting that during her attendance at the oversight visit with the Deputy President, Minister, and Deputy Minister, she saw tangible results with some residents finally receiving water in their homes.

Ms Kobe then raised concerns about the communities around Middle Letaba, which still dId not have access to water. She referred to the short-term solution proposed by the Department, which involved a R200 million budget to refurbish boreholes. While acknowledging this effort, she questioned the current situation in these communities. She asked whether a more sustainable, long-term solution should be prioritised instead of spending such a large sum on a temporary fix. She highlighted past issues where boreholes were refurbished at exorbitant costs, such as R175 000 per borehole, and warned that similar inefficiencies should be avoided.

She suggested that instead of using the R200 million for borehole refurbishments, it might be more prudent to funnel those funds towards a permanent solution. She further inquired about the current situation in Middle Letaba and whether any short-term interventions were already in place. Ms Kobe also mentioned that during the oversight visit, DDG Mathye had indicated that the narrative that people were not receiving water should be avoided given the ongoing interventions. She also referenced ZZ2, a commercial farming company, which had the potential to augment the water supply to Middle Letaba, and asked for an update on its progress, hoping it could be fast-tracked as part of a more sustainable approach.

Minister Majodina emphasised that it was important for Members of the Committee to understand their roles and how the Committee should conduct its work. She pointed out that the Committee had its own oversight responsibilities, which some of them had previously served on, and that it should not interfere with the work being done by the executive. While it may be out of interest for Members to get involved, she cautioned that such actions should be avoided as much as possible.

Addressing the concerns raised by other Members, particularly those questioning the Committee's awareness, Minister Majodina explained that the former Minister of Water and Sanitation, Mr Senzo Mchunu, had commissioned an investigation. The report from that investigation was tabled but was not well-received by the Committee which rejected it. As a result, a new commission, led by retired Judge Bernard Ngoepe, had been appointed to take a detailed look into the issues raised by the Committee. This new investigation was expected to be completed by January 2025, and it would cover every aspect of the complaints.

Minister Majodina noted that when they were on-site for oversight six weeks prior, they instructed the DWS, the Municipality, and the Water Board to engage with the Committee despite the ongoing investigation. The goal was to ensure that water reached the communities. A timeline of 14 to 21 days was set for these engagements to take place, and the claims would be assessed based on the previous report. She stressed that while the report could serve as a springboard for finding a solution, it was not the final word on the matter, as the Committee had expressed reservations about it.

Minister Majodina concluded by reflecting that this was the main point that needed addressing, unless she had missed something.

The Chairperson requested answers regarding the use of the R200 million and asked for a progress report on that matter. He directed the Minister or DWS to provide clarity on this issue. He further mentioned that it is the right of individual Members, like Ms Kobe, to conduct their own oversight, separate from the Committee. He noted that it would be unfortunate if Members of Parliament were stopped from doing their own oversight work and clarified that this might have been a misunderstanding.

Deputy Minister Mahlobo responded by stating that the Director-General would address the issues related to the allocation of funds. He mentioned that the Minister had adequately addressed the question regarding the people struggling in Middle Letaba. He added that the Minister had issued a directive to the team on this matter.

Dr Phillips followed by addressing the Chairperson, first providing an update on the construction unit. He mentioned that a large Grade 9 CIDB-registered contractor had been appointed by Lepelle Northern Waters to support the construction unit, ensuring that deadlines for bulk work would be met due to this additional support. He deferred to Mr Mathye to respond to the specifics of the R200 million project.

Mr Mathye responded to the question raised by Ms Kobe, particularly regarding the borehole issues. He explained that the Department was working to ensure sustainable water provision to the affected communities, as boreholes had historically been unreliable and required periods to recharge. He clarified that the reference to the R200 million was made by their colleagues in Mopani, and it was likely part of a Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) funded project. He noted that while there may have been an impression that the communities in Middle Letaba had been without water for years, intermittent water supply had been provided through tankering and refurbished boreholes during the planning phase of the reticulation for five villages. He reiterated that the Department's focus was on providing long-term, permanent solutions, with phase two of the project set to augment water connections for the remaining villages. He concluded by suggesting that Mopani Municipality should provide further clarification on the R200 million and the refurbishment of boreholes in the interim.

Mr S Dithebe (ANC) began by commending the Executive Mayor and his team for their efforts in identifying and managing the risks involved in the project. He noted that the people in the affected areas could see an improvement today and could expect even better results tomorrow in terms of water provision. He expressed his well wishes for the extension of water supply to the remaining 15 villages, given that the process had started with only nine. villages

He referred to a point raised by Ms Mohlala regarding the District Development model. He said it was clear from the presentations by both the Department and the Executive Mayor that extraordinary steps had been taken. These went beyond the Department’s usual role to ensure bulk water supply working closely with the District Municipality and other parties. Mr Dithebe acknowledged that the Department was involved on a level typically managed by municipalities and said this would help restore confidence in the government. He expressed hope that the rest of the villages would receive water soon.

Mr Dithebe also thanked the Minister and Deputy President for their oversight role, noting that they had consistently raised the issue of the 55 villages. He acknowledged that significant funding would be needed to ensure water supply to all 55 villages, covering not only the water supply but also treatment and reticulation. He raised questions about the nine villages currently receiving water and asked how many people and households were benefiting. He stressed the need for local municipalities to work with the district municipality to ensure that the same anticipation of risks was applied to ensuring actual water consumers, such as households and businesses, were involved.

He pointed out the looming financial difficulties faced by municipalities such as Magalies and Vaal Central Water Boards largely due to non-payment for water services by households and businesses. He urged the district and local municipalities to take steps to avoid this situation.

Mr Dithebe referred to the 2023 Blue Drop, Green Drop, and No Drop reports, which highlighted the risks posed by a lack of maintenance. He acknowledged that controlling the water and sanitation situation would require around R100 billion and asked if the district municipality had started working with local municipalities to ensure that, now that households had access to potable water, people were paying for the service. He also stressed the importance of monitoring the quality of water to avoid high maintenance costs later, and that citizens should be engaged in appreciating water as a valuable resource.

Mr Mahayi explained that the number of households benefiting from the nine villages was included in the annex charts attached to the presentation. The annex charts detailed the total number of households in each village and the number currently benefiting from the project. He noted that this information had already been provided.

The Chairperson then asked for the exact figure immediately to which Mr Mahayi responded that he would need to refer to his presentation.

At this point, Cllr Shayi intervened stating that the presentation showed 4 447 households currently benefiting from the nine pipelines mentioned.

Mr Mahayi confirmed this saying that Cllr Shayi had already covered his point. He added that the slide titled “Further Details on Practically Completed Projects” listed all the projects and the number of households benefiting as indicated by the executive. He addressed another question concerning cost recovery explaining that the Department was fully funding the project, including cost recovery in areas where the people were already benefitting. A pilot project had been initiated in one village, with all baseline information gathered, and the process was at an advanced stage. The community in that village would start receiving bills soon, and they would be expected to pay for water usage beyond the free six kilolitres provided under the indigent policy.

He mentioned that consultations with the community had taken place before the project started, and the community fully supported the initiative, recognising the seriousness of the efforts. Regarding the Blue Drop status and maintenance, Mr Mahayi assured the Committee that water quality had improved significantly due to refurbishment efforts. He expressed confidence that, in the next assessment, their water treatment works would achieve Blue Drop compliance. He referenced previous achievements, noting that he had led a technical Department that received Blue Drop status in 2020. He emphasised their commitment to ensuring all wastewater and water treatment works met the required standards.

Mr Dithebe then raised a related question about the Blue Drop status, asking if non-revenue water was also being addressed. He suggested that, with a new pipeline in place, the Committee needed assurance that best practices, like those in Rain Water, were being followed. He expressed the need for municipalities to learn from one another and manage water resources efficiently.

Mr M Dlelanga (ANC) expressed his gratitude for the opportunity to speak, acknowledging the complexity of the Giyani project. He described the project as a "complex animal to handle," but commended the leadership for making progress under challenging circumstances. He felt the report outlined the issues clearly, along with the ways to address those challenges. He raised two questions, the first of which had already been mentioned by Mr Ramalia. This was regarding the Nsami Water Treatment Plant. According to the report, there had been an investigation into the plant’s non-functionality, and the Municipality was determining the total cost of fixing it. While he appreciated the work being done, Mr Dlelanga noted a gap in the report, as it did not specify when the project started or when it was likely to be completed. He emphasised that this needed to be clarified especially regarding the service provider involved.

His second question concerned the protection of the canal to prevent contamination. The report mentioned that a temporary fence had been installed but he wanted to know the long-term plan to ensure the canal remained protected and uncontaminated given the priority of delivering clean water.

Minister Majodina responded to Mr Dlelanga’s concerns starting with the canal issue. She explained that most of the canals were open and the temporary fence had been put in place to protect both the canal and the community living nearby. The next step would be to replace the open canal with a proper water pipe. She clarified that the water currently flowing through the canal was not drinkable as it was being channelled to the water treatment plant for purification. However, she stressed the importance of speeding up the process to prevent people from using the raw water, as it might appear clean but was not safe for consumption. The temporary fence was a precautionary measure but there was also a need to establish water committees within the community to help safeguard the water.

Regarding the investigation into the Nsami Water Treatment Plant, Minister Majodina deferred the question to the Director-General and the Municipality for further clarification. She thanked Mr Dlelanga for raising these important points.

The Chairperson asked if it would be possible to explore the option of placing slabs over the canal or if that would be too expensive. He also inquired whether the canal would need to be piped in the future suggesting that this be added to the discussion.

Mr Mathye responded, explaining that the original design of the open canal was intentional, as it was located in an unoccupied area at the time. However, due to changes in settlement patterns, the area is now populated with people living closer to the canal. The Department's long-term intention is to convert the open canal into a closed conduit essentially a closed pipe, for safety reasons. The canal spans approximately 7 kilometres. Although the current temporary fence has been installed, the Department is looking into the future possibility of closing the canal for safety.

Regarding the water treatment plant, Mr Mathye explained that there had been issues with a 6-megalitre plant that was commissioned but never fully functional. Structural engineers have since assessed the plant, revealing risks associated with its current condition. Despite these challenges, some components, like valves and pumps, can still be reused when the new system is upgraded.

Mr Mahayi added to Mr Mathye's explanation. He confirmed that several components from the failed water treatment plant, such as the high and low lift pumps and some valves, would be reused in the proposed 10-megalitre upgrade, which is to be funded through a Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant (RBIG) funding mechanism. These components have already been removed and stored at the treatment works, so no new ones will need to be procured. Regarding the structural parts of the plant, some sections will need to be demolished as they are no longer usable. He mentioned that a Professional Quantity Surveyor (PQS) had been appointed to handle the removal and costing of these components. While Mr Mahayi could not commit to a specific timeline for the project's completion, he requested that information be provided at a later stage to ensure accuracy.

The Chairperson requested that a report detailing the expected end date for the project be sent, emphasising that it should be submitted within 14 days.

Mr Mahayi agreed to this request confirming that he would arrange for the report to be sent as requested.

The Chairperson then specified that the report should be sent to them as well as to the Deputy Minister. He also invited the Deputy Minister to add comments.

Deputy Minister Mahlobo responded by addressing the issue of poor workmanship from the previous administration, stating that additional funds had been allocated to rectify the situation. He pointed out that there must be accountability for the failed water treatment plant which had led to significant financial loss with over R70 million being wasted. He stressed that action must be taken against those responsible. He also highlighted that the lack of sufficient treatment capacity was a major reason why the people of Mopani were still without water. Deputy Minister Mahlobo reiterated the need for consequence management regarding the contractor's behaviour and the technical issues surrounding the possibility of reviving the treatment plant. He concluded by insisting that those responsible for the failures must be held accountable.

Further discussion

The Chairperson acknowledged the Deputy Minister’s input and requested that the Mopani investigation be included in the report. He asked for clarity on where the investigation currently stood and with whom it was being conducted, suggesting that if the investigation involved the Special Investigating Unit , the Committee might invite them to explain further.

The Chairperson also asked if Mr Dlelanga was satisfied with the answers to his questions but noted that he might have lost connection. He then opened the floor for a second round of questions.

Ms Mohlala raised her concerns and asked several questions. She highlighted the significant delays the project had faced from 2014 to 2021, with a completion timeline now set for March 2025. She inquired about the specific measures being implemented to ensure these delays would not occur again, particularly regarding Phase 1 of the 24 villages and the broader Giyani project. Ms Mohlala also questioned the justification of the estimated R5.5 billion cost for the water services component of the project, referencing previous allegations of corruption and mismanagement. She asked what safeguards were in place to prevent further financial mismanagement.

In addition, she expressed concern over the capacity and functionality of the Giyani Water Treatment Works which had previously been dysfunctional. She asked for evidence to confirm that the refurbishment and upgrades were addressing the water supply needs. Ms Mohlala also raised environmental concerns regarding the construction of the Nandoni-Nsami pipeline and the extraction of water, particularly in light of the ongoing drought affecting water availability. Finally, she requested clarification on whether 24 or nine villages were receiving water as there appeared to be confusion following the 27 August meeting. She stressed the importance of the Department providing a list of the communities receiving water, so the Committee could conduct its own oversight.

Minister Majodina responded by clarifying that as of 27 August 2024, 24 villages were receiving water, but the situation varied. Out of the 24, 15 villages were receiving water from standpipes located approximately 200 metres away from their homes, while the nine remaining villages were connected directly to yard taps. The Minister acknowledged the delays and assured the Committee that moving forward strict measures would be implemented to prevent any recurrence of past issues. She mentioned that financial monitoring would be a priority and allowed the Director-General and municipality representatives to elaborate on the specific steps being taken to ensure the project’s success and avoid further delays.

The Chairperson sought clarification from Minister Majodina, asking whether the nine villages were connected to household stands and if the remaining villages also had water access, albeit at different levels. He wanted to confirm that the nine villages had direct household connections.

Minister Majodina confirmed that the Chairperson understood her correctly, emphasising that while all 24 villages were receiving water, not all were connected in the same manner. Nine villages had household connections, whereas the others relied on communal access points.

Dr Phillips elaborated on the situation, referencing slide 19 of the presentation. He explained that the water reticulation project was being executed in two phases. Phase 1 included household connections in 24 villages. As of now, nine villages have received household connections, while the other 15 have communal standpipes. The goal was to have all 24 villages connected to household water by December 2024, rather than March 2025, as initially projected.

Dr Phillips also discussed the delays, citing two main reasons: the lack of integrated planning and issues of corruption. The initial project failed to plan for bulk water reticulation at the same time as household connections, leading to delays. However, he assured the Committee that the Department had since addressed this issue through better coordination between the Department of Water and Sanitation, the Mopani District Municipality, and the water boards.

He explained that corruption within Lepelle Northern Water had also caused major delays particularly with the construction of the 40-kilometre pipeline from Nandoni to Nsami Dam. To mitigate the risk of corruption in the current project the Department was working closely with the Mopani District Municipality and had requested that their officials sit on the Municipality’s bid committees to observe the procurement processes and ensure transparency. He added that officials involved in previous corrupt activities had resigned or been dismissed, and the governance within Lepelle Northern Water had improved significantly.

Addressing concerns about the Giyani Water Treatment Works, Dr Phillips clarified that the main plant had been refurbished and was now fully functional, producing the required 30 megalitres of water per day. However, a secondary 6-megalitre plant, built with mixed funding by the Mopani District Municipality, remained dysfunctional. The Department was assisting the Municipality in addressing this issue.

Regarding the environmental impact of the project, Dr Phillips assured the Committee that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had been completed as required by law particularly for the 40-kilometre pipeline. This assessment had been part of the project’s planning process.

DDG Mr Mathye provided additional details regarding the water project. He emphasised that when the Department took over the project to upgrade, refurbish, and optimise the water plant, it was operating at 15 megalitres per day. After refurbishment, the plant was now operating at 30 megalitres per day. He assured the committee that a detailed report on the plant’s flow rate would be provided within the next 14 days. This data would allow the committee to measure the plant’s production before and after optimisation, visually demonstrating the improvement in productivity.

Mr Mathye also addressed the information concerning the nine villages connected to water as part of Phase 1 of the 24-village reticulation project. He confirmed that this information had been submitted, and he suggested verifying this through the Office of the Director-General. The data on the villages receiving water was part of the current presentation, and he assured the Committee that it was accurate.

He further clarified the scope of the project. The reticulation of 55 villages was a new component that only started in 2022. It was separate from the original 2014 project, which focused on bulk services and reservoirs by Lepelle Northern Water Board. He stressed that it was important to distinguish between these two phases to avoid confusion. Members might mistakenly believe that the project, which began in 2014, would not deliver water until 2026, which would mislead the public. However, the new reticulation project was progressing as planned, and they were not behind schedule.

Mr Mathye explained that Phase 2 of the project would start soon focusing on the remaining villages. He also highlighted the scale of the bulk services project noting that 325 kilometres of pipeline had been laid equivalent to the distance from Johannesburg, Gauteng to Polokwane, Limpopo. The project also included reservoirs and other significant infrastructure components. Despite delays in the bulk services, the Department had brought in Grade 9 contractors as part of an intervention to accelerate the project’s completion, ensuring that by the time Phase 2 began, the work on the remaining villages would be integrated and completed.

He concluded by reaffirming the Minister’s opening remarks thanking the Director-General for his leadership

Ms S Mosikatsi (ANC) greeted the Chairperson, the Minister, Mayor Shayi, Members, and all officials present. She expressed her appreciation for the efforts made by the Department of Water and Sanitation to assist the Municipality. Her question was directed to Mayor Shayi, focusing on the sustainability of water treatment plants. She inquired about the mechanisms the Municipality had put in place to ensure proper maintenance of the water treatment plants in a sustainable manner. She highlighted the Department's significant efforts and stressed the importance of avoiding a situation where the Department would need to return in one or two years to address the same issues. She concluded by thanking the Chairperson.

Mr Dithebe thanked Mr Mathye for his response and sought clarification regarding the R5.3 billion budget. He asked whether it covered the entire project including phase two which involved 31 villages, or if it only covered the remaining 15 villages bringing the total to 24. He mentioned that it seemed like the quota involved was for the entirety of the 31 villages and sought confirmation for this. He thanked the speaker for the explanation provided which he found helpful.

Mr Mahayi thanked the Mayor. He explained that as part of the close-out report the appointed Professional Service Providers (PSPs) were also providing Operation and Maintenance (O&M) manuals and As-Built drawings. He mentioned that they would ensure proper budgeting for maintenance in the future. While no immediate maintenance was required on the recently completed infrastructure, the manuals and drawings would assist in safeguarding the asset and extending its lifespan. He concluded by thanking the Chairperson.

Dr Phillips thanked the Chairperson and clarified that the figure discussed was R5.5 billion, not R5.3 billion. He explained that the amount was divided into three components: R2 billion for bulk infrastructure, R1.3 billion for phase one (currently underway, including reticulation), and R2.2 billion for phase two which was set to begin the following year.

The Chairperson thanked the executive Mayor and his team from Mopani for their participation noting that there were no further questions regarding Giyani. He expressed appreciation for their availability and informed them they were welcome to leave the platform as the Department proceeded with the next presentation.

Progress on the Bucket Eradication Programme as of August 2024

Minister Majodina introduced the presentation, noting that the Bucket Eradication Programme had shifted between three different Departments since its inception. She highlighted that an audit of the bucket system was conducted across the country revealing the presence of bucket toilets in four provinces. The breakdown of the audit showed 7 000 in the Eastern Cape, 32 000 in the Free State, 14 000 in the Northern Cape, and 3 000 in the North West. She explained that the Free State had the highest number of buckets which is why the programme initially concentrated on that province.

Minister Majodina indicated that the presentation would provide further details on the progress, challenges, and strategies to address the issues. She concluded by handing over to the Director-General to continue with the presentation thanking the Chairperson for the opportunity to speak.

Presentation

Dr Phillips thanked the Chairperson and clarified that both the sanitation function and the bucket eradication programme had moved through four different departments which had led to varied implementation strategies and significant delays. He noted that each time the programme shifted Departments, new leadership often approached the implementation differently and frequently used different implementing agents. This inconsistency has been a major cause of delays in achieving the targets of the bucket eradication programme.

He emphasised that inadequate planning at its inception was one of the main reasons for the programme's prolonged delays. Initially, there was an assumption that existing bucket systems could be upgraded to basic sanitation, but this was found to be unfeasible in urban areas. Consequently, the decision was made to transition to waterborne sewage systems. However, it was assumed that connecting newly installed toilets to bulk wastewater systems would be straightforward without planning for necessary upgrades to wastewater treatment infrastructure. As the project was implemented, it became evident that connections could not be made because the existing treatment systems lacked the capacity to handle the additional sewage loads, resulting in many projects needing redesign and upgrades.

Dr Phillips elaborated on the programme’s history, stating that it began in 2012 when the Department of Human Settlements commissioned an audit of the state of sanitation, revealing that some communities still relied on bucket systems in both formal and informal areas. The audit identified the presence of buckets in four provinces: the Eastern Cape, Free State, Northern Cape, and North West. In response, the Department of Human Settlements initiated the bucket eradication programme, collaborating with the Departments of Culture and Water Affairs and Forestry. However, poor planning and a lack of feasibility studies were significant obstacles.

In 2014, the sanitation function was transferred to the newly created Department of Water and Sanitation. The DWS decided to allow water boards and other entities to complete existing projects while also using its construction unit for necessary bulk wastewater treatment works. In 2019, there was another departmental change, merging DWS with the Department of Human Settlements, which led to further irregularities and delays in project implementation.

In 2020, the Minister directed the bucket eradication programme to be transferred back to the Department of Human Settlements, with the Housing Development Agency managing the projects. However, in 2021, the DWS was re-established without Human Settlements, leading to another transfer of the programme back to DWS. Since then, the focus has been on implementation, with significant progress made on outstanding projects.

Currently, most projects are over 70% complete, with estimated completion dates set for December 2024. However, some delays persist due to issues such as high water tables and contractual disputes. Dr Phillips highlighted that the eradication of buckets remains a dynamic challenge, particularly in informal settlements, and emphasised the importance of developing a national sanitation framework to outlaw bucket systems.

[See attached for full presentation]

Dr Sudhir Pillay, Research Manager: Sanitation, Water Research Commission (WRC), addressed the Committee, stating that he agrees with the previous comments made by the Deputy Minister. He highlighted the importance of providing full flushing toilets across the country, noting that the cost for a single metropolitan area can reach R60 billion, excluding human resources components. He expressed concern about the ongoing droughts and their impact on water availability, emphasising that the issue affects more than just specific areas.

Dr Pillay discussed the need for new technologies in sanitation systems, particularly regarding water storage solutions. He raised the question of how sanitation systems can function effectively during periods without water, as malfunctioning toilets can pose significant public health risks. He also suggested that treatment facilities should be located closer to the source of waste to minimise the need for extensive pumping, which can be both costly and inefficient.

He referenced examples from other countries, including Belgium and cities like San Francisco, which are moving towards decentralised sanitation systems. These countries are recognising the limitations of their water resources and the high costs associated with transporting water over long distances. He stressed the necessity for a national strategy in South Africa that encourages water reuse, similar to practices seen in winter water management.

Dr Jennifer Molwantwa, CEO, WRC, added by expressing her pleasure at the Portfolio Committee’s engagement with alternative sanitation solutions. She noted that South Africa is recognised as a leading player in developing water-efficient sanitation options, which has been a significant focus over the past decade.

Dr Molwantwa highlighted the collaboration between the WRC and the Department of Science and Innovation under the National Innovation Programme, along with support from organisations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This partnership has allowed for the testing of innovative technologies, developed through collaboration with the University of KwaZulu-Natal and various commercial partners.

She mentioned the evidence collected demonstrating that these alternative technologies can effectively save water, particularly in regions such as Limpopo and the Northern Cape, where water scarcity and geological challenges hinder traditional methods. These solutions include recycling and reusing water, and extensive research has also examined the health impacts of such technologies.

Dr Molwantwa underscored the importance of ensuring that sanitation services meet the needs of South Africans, providing dignity and quality. She referred to a model where sanitation services could be viewed similarly to utilities like DSTV, where customers pay for the service while receiving safety and dignity.

She indicated that a more detailed presentation on their progress would be forthcoming and noted that these technologies are being exported from South Africa. The WRC has also installed these systems in rural schools that are facing significant challenges.

Lastly, Dr Molwantwa emphasised the economic potential of these technologies, highlighting opportunities for local manufacturing, job creation, and training for new plumbers. She asserted that access to quality sanitation must not depend on one’s background, echoing the constitutional principle of dignity. She concluded by reinforcing the urgency of improving sanitation to prevent further tragedies.

Discussion

Ms Mohlala began by acknowledging the delegation from the Water Research Commission and highlighted that while the commission excels in research, the implementation of projects by DWS has not been as successful. She referred to an oversight visit by the Portfolio Committee on Water and Sanitation in May 2023, during which the Committee discovered significant issues on-site, contrary to the assurances given by the Department.

During the visit, the Committee observed that while structures had been built, there was a lack of bulk infrastructure to support them. This resulted in sewage spillages and inadequate planning, with essential reports missing. Ms Mohlala expressed concern over the irregular expenditures of project funds on unnecessary items, leading to vandalism of the facilities that had been constructed.

She questioned the Department about accountability measures, specifically whether any individuals had been held responsible for the shortcomings. Ms Mohlala stressed the need for transparency, given that taxpayer money had been wasted. She noted that the Committee was initially promised an oversight visit to the Northern Cape, which did not occur, despite reports suggesting that only a few villages were completed and awaiting formal letters.

Ms Mohlala emphasised the importance of addressing sanitation in both informal and formal settlements, asserting that for people living in informal settlements, access to sanitation is a matter of dignity. She cited the poor living conditions in areas like Petrusville and other townships in the Northern Cape and Free State, urging the Department to take immediate action to address these challenges.

She raised concerns about the impact of multiple implementing agents on project timelines and outcomes, asking for specific examples of delays or failures in the Northern Cape and Free State due to this inconsistency. Furthermore, she sought clarification on how community feedback was being incorporated into decisions about sanitation solutions, particularly the switch from VIP toilets to waterborne sanitation.

Lastly, Ms Mohlala addressed procurement challenges within the Department's internal construction unit, urging for specific actions to resolve these issues and prevent further delays in project implementation. She concluded by stressing the importance of serving the community with dignity and respect.

Minister Majodina explained that the project resulted from the 2012 audit, which had a timeframe. She noted that the issue is a moving target due to planned and unplanned factors, such as the growing population and informal settlement. The DWS’s mandate was to eradicate issues that arose before 2012, but new challenges continue to emerge. She expressed that the easiest solutions, which are often deemed unacceptable, are primarily implemented by municipalities, and emphasised that people should have access to sanitation regardless of their legal status. The Minister highlighted the ongoing challenges regarding waterborne sanitation, stating that it would not be feasible at the current rate of water availability in the country. She raised the question of what happened when the switch was made from the package system to the VIP system, requesting specifics on the delays and consequences for those who failed to follow proper processes.

Dr Phillips responded by agreeing with Ms Mohlala that the programme was not planned well initially. He acknowledged that there were instances where flush toilets were installed without the necessary bulk wastewater infrastructure in place. He explained that when the programme was transferred to the Department of Water and Sanitation from the Department of Human Settlements, they had to rectify those issues, which contributed to delays in completion. Regarding consequence management, he stated that the sanitation function had been under the jurisdiction of four different Departments since its inception, and the original planning failures occurred in another Department. Consequently, it is challenging for the Department of Water and Sanitation to hold anyone accountable for those earlier planning decisions. He invited Mr Mathye and Chief Director Andre Vanderbilt to provide specific examples of project delays caused by factors like high water tables and disruptions from business forums.

Mr Mathye conveyed appreciation to the Director-General and noted that the Portfolio Committee's oversight visit to Free State highlighted that many construction activities were underway. He pointed out that while the project was being implemented, issues such as excavations and construction work were evident, including the oxidation pond, which is a wastewater treatment facility designed to manage waste from individual toilets. He emphasised that the necessary infrastructure had not been functional or adequately planned when the project began. This oversight led to complications, as proper planning requires data collection and environmental assessments before construction begins.

He further explained that the Department’s ongoing challenges are due to complex engineering assessments and designs being addressed while construction is already in progress. Mr Mathye acknowledged the delays related to the issuance of occupancy certificates, stating that these are typically issued once toilet structures are completed and functional. Regarding the Northern Cape visit, he clarified that postponements were due to travel constraints and not because the DWS wanted to prevent the Committee from visiting.

Mr Andre van der Walt, Chief Director: Sanitation Services Support, DWS, addressed the Committee and confirmed his presence in the Free State. He mentioned that when the project began in 2012, some bulk services were available, but upgrades were necessary in some towns. He explained that difficulties arose from poor record-keeping about existing water networks and electrical cables, which hindered excavation and construction efforts. This lack of information often caused damage to existing services during the excavation process, leading to further delays.

Mr van der Walt described the process for issuing occupancy certificates, which only occurs when the toilet is fully functional and accepted by the household and Municipality. He reiterated that the project in Campbell was incomplete, indicating a shift in approach to implementing alternative sanitation technology based on recommendations from the Water Research Commission.

He acknowledged issues with foreign objects being flushed and insufficient water supply leading to blockages and spillages, emphasising that technical considerations must be prioritised moving forward. He concluded by expressing optimism about the progress made over the past year and encouraged continued efforts to complete the projects and deliver essential services to communities.

Mr Dithebe requested examples or samples of the technologies mentioned by the WRC, suggesting that imagery or actual gadgets would be helpful for understanding their functionality. He raised a question about the funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, inquiring whether it was for corporate social investment (CSI) or if it involved importing technologies from companies linked to the foundation.

He provided examples of water-saving technologies, mentioning how airlines have implemented systems that use less water for onboard facilities. He highlighted innovations seen in locations like various public places in Cape Town, where toilets and urinals use less water through automated systems and suction capabilities.

Mr Dithebe stressed the importance of careful water usage, referencing an article about Cape Town's limited water availability in certain areas. He advocated for financial incentives for those using alternative sanitation technologies, emphasising the need for these solutions to ensure human dignity.

He also discussed the necessity for different government entities to collaborate on issues related to illegal land occupation, recognising the constitutional protections that apply after certain periods. He pointed out that while demands are made for services, there are also corresponding responsibilities that must be acknowledged.

Concerning local municipalities, he questioned whether metropolitan areas in the Free State were not mentioned due to their categorisation under the Urban Settlement Development Grant (USDG) or other reasons. He asked about the expected completion timeline for projects, particularly regarding eradicating bucket systems, referencing the 2012 deadline and inquiring when these projects would be completed in affected areas.

Minister Majodina assured Members that the Department would provide compelling success stories related to dry sanitation, particularly in areas facing water scarcity. She emphasised the partnership with technology developers and highlighted the user-friendly nature of these facilities in deep rural schools, designed to ensure safety for young children, especially in light of past tragedies.

Dr Phillips clarified that the work with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a purely corporate social investment with no commercial interests involved. He explained that the Foundation focuses on philanthropic efforts to improve sanitation technologies not just in South Africa but globally, including in countries like India, without any conditions tied to the support.

He also discussed the idea of financial incentives for housing developments or individuals using on-site sanitation solutions. He suggested that these individuals should not have to pay the sanitation charge to municipalities, providing an immediate financial benefit. As new technologies become more widely adopted and approval processes for new waterborne sewage connections become more stringent, such incentives will encourage the implementation of on-site solutions.

Dr Phillips responded to concerns about the limited scope of the bucket eradication programme, acknowledging that it would not eliminate all buckets in South Africa. He noted that the programme was defined by specific audits from the Department of Human Settlements and agreed that further action is needed beyond this programme.

He mentioned the completion timelines outlined in Slide 6, indicating that most projects are expected to finish by December 2024, with a couple extending into March 2025. He highlighted that the Campbell project will take longer, with Phase One set for completion in July 2025 and Phase Two in March 2026.

Deputy Minister Mahlobo suggested that further discussion is needed regarding the issues raised, particularly those mentioned by Mr Dithebe. He highlighted that sanitation is not solely a national government responsibility and reiterated the importance of collaboration with municipalities and human settlements.

He expressed concern that many municipalities continue to construct housing without adequate sanitation services, leading to unsightly and unsafe conditions, such as sewage running into the streets. He noted that despite the beauty of some houses, these critical infrastructure issues remain unaddressed, prompting occasional calls for ministerial support.

DM Mahlobo pointed out the challenge of unplanned human settlements and informal settlements, particularly in areas like the Western Cape, where the proliferation of bucket systems has been noted. He stressed the need for the Water Resource Commission to explore alternative, environmentally friendly sanitation technologies that do not rely on traditional sewer systems.

He called for a comprehensive approach to sanitation strategy, emphasising the necessity for national norms and standards that must be adhered to. Further, he highlighted the potential for using waste management to generate gas and produce fertilisers, aligning with principles of a circular economy.

DM Mahlobo concluded by acknowledging the importance of innovation in the sanitation sector and reaffirmed the commitment to returning for further discussions on these critical issues.

The Chairperson agreed that, because water and sanitation are included in the name of the Department, the public often assumes that it is solely the Department of Water and Sanitation's responsibility, rather than that of COGTA. He concurred with the Minister that this issue requires further exploration in the future.

The Chairperson then addressed Mr Moore, whose hand had been raised, to ask if his concerns had been covered before proceeding to Mr Ramalia.

Mr Ramalia took the floor, emphasising the need to swiftly complete the projects under discussion. He noted that the Portfolio Committee’s primary message was that the prolonged delay in finalising these projects must end. He framed his question to the Minister with a brief preamble, referencing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically Goal 6, which seeks to ensure universal access to clean water, sanitation, and hygiene. He highlighted that hygiene often gets overlooked in the broader context and also pointed to the target of ending open defecation by 2030.

Mr Ramalia also referred to South Africa's National Development Plan (NDP), which clearly outlines the role of Departments in addressing infrastructure, particularly water and sanitation. He emphasised that both the SDGs and the NDP look beyond 2030, stressing that the Department must align itself with these frameworks.

He then posed his main question to the Minister, asking about the mechanisms being used by the Department to address the regression in water and sanitation targets, which negatively impacts both Goal 6 of the SDGs and Proactive 4 of the NDP. He expressed concern about the integration challenges the Department is facing in meeting these targets.

Mr Ramalia requested that the Department present a detailed plan to the portfolio committee on how it intends to halt the regression in water and sanitation targets. He acknowledged the complexity of the issue, especially with moving targets due to population growth and the establishment of new settlements but stressed that historical projects need to be completed and progress made. He concluded by expressing the Committee's expectation for action on these long-overdue projects.

Minister Majodina began by addressing the importance of SDG Goal 6, which focuses on water and sanitation. She acknowledged the challenges in achieving this goal, emphasising that these setbacks were not entirely within the Department’s control. Minister Majodina stated that, since 2012, a number of new water sanitation systems have been rolled out. She agreed with the Chairperson’s earlier comment that since the Department’s name includes "sanitation," it is responsible for responding to issues even when they overlap with mandates of other Departments. While acknowledging the role of local municipalities in delivering sanitation services, Minister Majodina stressed that the Department must also play an oversight role, ensuring that these municipalities fulfil their responsibilities and meet their budgetary allocations.

Deputy Minister (DM) Mahlobo remarked that the Minister had already covered much of what needed to be addressed. He then responded to Mr Ramalia’s points, particularly on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), emphasising that South Africa has made notable progress, especially on SDG number 6. Currently, the country has achieved over 90% access to water and more than 84% access to sanitation. However, he acknowledged the recent decline in access to these services.

DM Mahlobo highlighted that, during the budget vote presentation, the Minister, supported by the Deputy Ministers, was the first to admit that some communities still lack consistent water access, whether for months or weeks. In response, the Minister outlined several initiatives aimed at preventing water shortages, including various bulk infrastructure projects. Although some of these projects were delayed, they are now progressing, such as the work on Clanwilliam and Umzimvubu Dams. The Deputy Minister noted that the Department’s primary goal is to ensure water security, which is key to meeting the country’s developmental objectives.

He also addressed the issue of water management, noting that the performance of water service authorities has been declining. For example, the reliability of water services has dropped to around 68% in some municipalities. He mentioned interventions under Section 63 of the Constitution, such as in the Emfuleni Municipality, where water losses are as high as 72%, leading to water availability below 30%. He cited similar concerns in eThekwini Municipality, where the Minister had stepped in to provide leadership, as reflected in the "drop reports" that measure the performance of South Africa's water systems, including drinking water and wastewater management.

DM Mahlobo discussed the Department's reform efforts, emphasising the need for a well-regulated water service provider system. This would include licensing authorities, whether municipalities, utilities, or water boards, to manage water supply. He addressed concerns that the Minister was attempting to take control, but clarified that it is a cooperative effort under Section 78, which involves various implementation models like concessions or collaborations with municipalities. The Deputy Minister warned that failure to reform the system would result in further problems, highlighting the use of intervention instruments for non-performing municipalities.

On funding, DM Mahlobo stressed the need for more efficient use of existing resources. He pointed out that revenue from water sales is not being reinvested back into the water system as it should be, which hampers infrastructure maintenance and development. He supported the Minister’s call to treat water as a tradable asset, similar to electricity, where funds generated from sales are reinvested into maintaining and upgrading infrastructure.

DM Mahlobo also mentioned the role of public-private partnerships in funding water infrastructure projects. He highlighted several initiatives including dams in the Northern Cape, that are being supported by innovative funding models. He also noted the establishment of the National Water Resource Infrastructure Agency (NWRIA), which will be tasked with mobilising resources through its balance sheet to address funding shortages.

The Deputy Minister then addressed the "user-pay" principle, pointing out that many South Africans resist paying for water services. He acknowledged that while affordability is a concern, there needs to be a balance between affordability and sustainability. He also mentioned the need for an independent economic regulator to oversee issues like electricity and chemicals, which impact water costs.

DM Mahlobo expressed confidence that South Africa is on track with its National Water and Sanitation Master Plan and is working towards the goals set out in both the NDP and SDGs. He pointed to ongoing cooperation with municipalities and other stakeholders to ensure that infrastructure projects are completed and that water services improve across the country.

He also noted that the Minister is preparing to shut down the Lesotho Highlands Water Project’s tunnel for maintenance, a necessary measure to avoid a crisis larger than that of Eskom. He stressed that South Africa must improve its system maintenance to ensure water security.

Finally, DM Mahlobo spoke about the role of citizens in water conservation. He noted that the per capita water usage in South Africa remains alarmingly high, and while the country has made strides in reducing water consumption under pressure (such as during Cape Town's Day Zero crisis), more needs to be done. He called for greater awareness and discipline among citizens in managing water resources, especially in public facilities.

He concluded by inviting the Committee to continue monitoring the Department’s progress in achieving the NDP, SDG, and Vision 2063 goals concerning water.

The Chairperson thanked the Deputy Minister and noted that Deputy Minister Isaac Seitlholo had left the platform. He then addressed Dr Molwantwa, asking if she wanted to add anything further and hoped he had pronounced her surname correctly. The Chairperson also mentioned that he would conclude the sitting after Dr Molwantwa’s response.

Dr Molwantwa responded by acknowledging the Chairperson's question and stated that there had been an inquiry regarding the experiences and acceptability of the technologies. She explained that alongside the technical programme, a parallel social research project had been conducted which revealed a high level of acceptance particularly in a school where the technology was demonstrated. She highlighted that the school had seen a significant increase in attendance, especially among young girls due to reduced absenteeism linked to their menstrual periods.

Dr Molwantwa also mentioned that there had been strong community support for the system and the toilets, with the community appreciating the benefits for the children. She further emphasised that the technology had won an international award from the International Water Association for Best Technology, which would improve its marketability. She concluded by expressing her gratitude for the opportunity to share this information.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Mahila and informed him that this would be his last chance to speak, as the Chairperson wished to conclude the meeting before 13:00.

Mr Ramalia expressed his gratitude to the Chairperson and reiterated his proposal for a presentation at the Portfolio Committee on the proposed reforms. He mentioned that these reforms had been discussed multiple times but were yet to be fully addressed. He also requested a presentation on the National Water Master Plan, so that the Committee could better understand how it aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals and the National Development Plan.

Closing remarks

The Chairperson acknowledged Mr Ramalia's request, agreeing that it could be included in the programme, and asked for it to be noted. He then thanked the Members for their participation in the lengthy session, noting that it was not yet concluded. He reminded them that the meeting would continue at 18:00 with presentations from the National Treasury and the Amatola Water Board. The Chairperson ended by thanking everyone again and wishing them an enjoyable lunch, while reminding them to use the same platform and link for the evening session.

Meeting was adjourned.