As Clear as Mud

WaterCAN says that SONA 2025 is as clear as mud on water projects.

WaterCAN welcomes the promise to prioritise water challenges, but wants clarity on spending and strong accountability

The attention to water in the President’s SONA 2025 is a welcome recognition of the urgent state of our water resources.

There are some victories. WaterCAN has been advocating for the ring-fencing of funds for water and sanitation, and we acknowledge this commitment as a victory for civil society activism. This proves that when people raise their voices, change can be forced. However, implementation will be critical to ensuring these funds lead to real improvements on the ground.

There is a focus on seven mostly unnamed large water infrastructure projects, with a promise that the Infrastructure Fund has secured funding of R23 billion for these. A lot was said about dams, with a promise of work underway to prepare for construction of the Ntabelanga Dam on the uMzimvubu River. The large projects have the potential to feed corruption, so these must be carefully managed with targets and monitoring. However, we are confused about the Infrastructure Fund, the accounting for this spending, and how much is government money and how much is private. Budget 2024 refers to “six water and sanitation projects” in “selected priority district municipalities” with an estimate of potential total investment of R1.6 billion, undergoing feasibility studies, so we hope to see more in Budget 2025.

It is good that there will be more of a direct focus on municipalities but these need much more attention to speed up. Our challenge is that almost 70% of wastewater treatment works (WWTW) are in a critical state and releasing billions of litres of sewage into our rivers and streams. This is not only killing the river ecosystems but affecting people’s right to clean safe water. In the meantime, we must still push for the dismissal and arrest of the people in charge.

The President mentioned partnerships with private sector and greater investment through the National Water Resource Infrastructure Agency (NWRIA). The NWRIA must not be another state-owned enterprise with a loaded budget, corrupt behaviour and inaction. In addition, the introduction of the ability to remove water use licences if a provider is not meeting standards for quality of water must not be a ruse to allow for widescale privatisation.

Through the Water Services Amendment Bill, government will be able to remove licences where providers do not meet the standards for quality drinking water and establish new water providers. These are important but we need to be cautious about creeping privatisation and control over our water.

We want to see the licencing system ensuring water quality. Licencing is pointless without monitoring and enforcement, otherwise it is a licence to pollute.

Not enough was said about dealing with the growing corruption at a local government level and in particular the growing water tanker mafia.

While the SONA contained important commitments, much remains unclear. We need to see concrete action and measurable progress. As civil society, we will continue to hold government accountable, monitor developments closely, and apply pressure where necessary. South Africa’s water resources are too precious to be mismanaged, and citizen activism remains a powerful force for change.