Water Bill Won’t Work Without Consequences

South Africa does not lack water laws. It lacks consequence management.

South Africans do not need another promise of reform. They need functioning infrastructure, clean rivers, and water that runs when the tap is opened.

The Water Services Amendment Bill acknowledges what communities have known for years. Across large parts of the country, municipal water and sanitation services have collapsed. Sewage flows into rivers. Treatment plants fail. Infrastructure decays while budgets are mismanaged. The damage is economic, environmental, and deeply personal.

The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) has made a formal submission to Parliament on the Bill. While OUTA recognises the scale of the reform and supports its intention, the organisation cautions that legislation alone will not restore service delivery.

OUTA supports the Bill’s intent to professionalise water services, strengthen compliance, and introduce consequences for persistent failure. Reform is necessary.

However, reform must address the root cause.

“South Africa does not suffer from a shortage of laws,” says Julius Kleynhans, OUTA Executive Manager. “We suffer from a shortage of political will. We already have a modern legislative framework. What we do not have is consistent consequence management when leadership fails.”

Municipalities that function properly are doing so within the existing legislative framework. The failures seen elsewhere stem largely from weak political oversight, inappropriate appointments, chronic under-maintenance, financial mismanagement, and a longstanding absence of consequences.

OUTA has also raised concerns about the concentration of licensing, regulatory, and enforcement powers within the Department of Water and Sanitation, particularly where the Department may also act as a service provider. This creates a conflict of interest, where the regulator becomes both player and referee.

Without strong safeguards, this risks politicisation, inconsistent decision-making, and constitutional conflict with municipal executive authority. OUTA reiterates its call for the establishment of an independent water regulator to ensure impartial oversight and credible enforcement.

The organisation welcomes the Bill’s proposed governance reforms for water boards, including clearer fiduciary duties and alignment with PFMA and King IV principles. However, governance reform alone will not succeed without financial sustainability, predictable infrastructure investment, and stronger alignment between water boards and municipalities.

OUTA further supports the introduction of criminal liability for directors and municipal managers found guilty of negligence or willful misconduct. Accountability must also extend to political office bearers who approve budgets, divert funding away from water infrastructure, or fail in their oversight responsibilities.

“Given the state of many municipalities, intervention is justified,” says Kleynhans. “But if we do not fix political interference and enforce consequences, this Bill risks becoming another well-written reform that fails in practice.”