Bushbuckridge Case Study Summary - The Water Dialogues

Bushbuckridge Case
Study Summary
September 2008
Research Team
Editors:
Community Researchers:
Municipal Researcher:
Erin Raab
Anne Mayher
Tsitsi Mukamba
Anne Mayher
Abraham Vermeulen
For the full Ugu DM case study report, please contact The Water
Dialogues-SA by phone at 031-205 8610 or via email at
waterdialoguesadmin@mail.ngo.za

Background
In South Africa (SA), access to a minimum level of potable water and sanitation facilities are a
human right. All citizens are meant to receive a minimum of 6 kilolitres of clean water per
month, have a standpipe within 200 metres of their home and have at least a drop or VIP toilet.
Since the first democratically-elected government took office in 1994, the extension of basic
services to those previously denied access has been made a priority. Amongst the most basic and
critical of these is the access of citizens to clean water and sanitation services. However, not
everyone has even this minimum of access, and there are great numbers of people without water
and sanitation services across the country. While this is due in large part to apartheid policies,
some people say the new democratic government should have done more since 1994 to extend
water and sanitation infrastructure to all citizens.
The Water Services Act of 1997 established the ‘Water Services Authority’ (WSA) function. The
WSA is meant to ensure the delivery of water and sanitation services to SA residents. The
Municipal Structures Act of 2000 decentralised the WSA function to local government by
assigning it to either the local or district municipalities, depending on which was more able to
perform the duties in each area. The WSA must determine the best way to deliver water and
sanitation services by choosing a ‘Water Services Provider’ (WSP). The WSP does the actual
delivery of services. A municipality can decide it would like to be the WSP itself (an internal
model), it can partner with another organisation, or it can contract an outside organisation to
complete all of WSP responsibilities (external model). There are many factors that must be
considered by the WSA in order to decide the best mix of organisations to fulfil a WSP’s
responsibilities. The “Section 78” process requires a WSA to carefully evaluate the benefits and
drawbacks of the options available to it before it may select a WSP. Each municipality must
ensure the institutional model it chooses is carefully designed to address its particular context
and challenges.
The Water Dialogues – South Africa (WD-SA) is trying to understand the best institutional
models for South Africa to achieve universal access to water and sanitation services. To do this,
WD-SA has invited key stakeholders from national and local government, private companies,
civil society, and the unions to discuss the most important issues and challenges facing the water
and sanitation sector. WD-SA aims to bring a range of views and constituencies round the table
to discuss, review and analyse different institutional approaches to water and sanitation delivery
services. Through collaborative research and discussions around the findings WD-SA seeks to
understand the process of choosing institutional approaches, as well as the impact different
approaches have on the quality and level of services received by residents.
To better understand the true situation, WD-SA has been conducting research in District
Municipalities across the country. The research was designed as a series of case studies.
Researchers conducted in-depth interviews with municipal officials and organised participatory
community workshops in four diverse areas of each municipality. A financial expert also
reviewed WSP documents. The research tries to understand the situation and challenges of both
the provider (government) and recipients (community members) of the services.
This document summarises the case study research conducted by The Water Dialogues-South
Africa in the Bushbuckridge Local Municipality (LM) around the approach Bushbuckridge LM
has taken toward the delivery of water and sanitation services to its residents. The case of
Bushbuckridge provides a critical opportunity to review different institutional arrangement types.
It is as an interesting case study as it is a Local Municipality that has undertaken both the Water
Services Authority and Water Services Provider roles and has received extensive technical
2

support and capacity-building from the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) yet,
based on its operating expenditure, the Bushbuckridge LM has been identified by WD-SA as
having low capacity to undertake these duties.
In this case study summary, the context of the research will be established through key
demographic facts about the LM, followed by a chart which summarises important data gathered
from and about each of the participating communities. Key findings are then discussed,
highlighting the main issues and important points of the research.
3

Introduction to Bushbuckridge Local Municipality
Historically, the question of under which province the Bushbuckridge area should fall has been a
political issue since before 1994. During the transitional period leading up to the 1994 national
and provincial elections in South Africa, nine provinces were established from four formerly
“white, coloured & Indian” provinces and ten formerly “black” homeland administrations.
Before 1994, the Bushbuckridge area had been partly Lebowa (North Sotho/Sipedi), partly
Gazankulu (Shangaan/Tsonga – the majority) and partly KaNgwane (Siswati – very small
portion) homelands. A decision was made to include it into the Northern (now Limpopo)
Province, but disagreements continued and the area was added to the Mpumalanga province in
2005. The area has a majority of Shangaan, a large minority of North Sotho and a small minority
Siswati. The former homeland divisions still run deep in the political psyche and are manifested
in two distinct factions within the ruling party (ANC). This political schism has shaped much of
the decision-making around institutional arrangements, and the prolonged period of
disagreement and uncertainty about jurisdiction also affected services delivery (which will be
discussed further in the following sections).
Bushbuckridge Local Municipality is now one of five local municipalities in the Ehlanzeni
District Municipality in the Mpumalanga Province. Mpumalanga is in the north-east of South
Africa, and Bushbuckridge is situated in the lowveld area in the north east of the province. The
well-known Kruger National Park provides Bushbuckridge with its eastern boundary, and the
Limpopo Province borders Northern edge of the LM.
Figure 1: Map Denoting Location of BBR LM
Source: Maluleke et al. 2005 [citing Demarcation Board]
Under apartheid, almost all of Bushbuckridge LM was under the jurisdiction of the Lebowa and
Gazankulu former homeland areas, which explains in some part the extreme under-development
of the LM. Though there are a few small urban centres (including Acornhoek, Thulamahashe,
Bushbuckridge, Marite, Dwarsloop, and Mkhuhlu), rural areas make up the majority of
Bushbuckridge LM, and most of the land is considered part of traditional “tribal” areas. Urban
areas tend to be wealthier and have access to better infrastructure, more economic opportunities
and greater range of municipal services than rural areas. Rural households depend largely on
external income sources, e.g. state grants and remittances from relatives working in urban areas.
4

Key demographic information about Bushbuckridge LM includes:
• Bushbuckridge LM has a population of around 720,000 1 .
• 65 percent of the population is under the age of 24 years 2 .
• Small rural villages comprise 29 percent of the population, while dense villages represent
61 percent, and about 9 percent of the population lives in urban centres.
• 84 percent of the population is classified by the municipality as “indigent,” in that they
earn less than R1300 per household per month.
• The rate of unemployment is extremely high – only 18 percent of the population is
employed (82 percent unemployed) 3 .
1 WSDP 2006/07
2 Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG) 2008
3 Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG) 2008
5

Participating Communities
For the WD-SA case study research, communities were chosen with the aim of achieving an accurate representation of the different types of
communities’ (Chart1 below) diverse experiences and researchers worked closely with the ward councillors and other community officials to identify
appropriate areas. Participatory community workshops were held in four distinct areas and participants conveyed information pertaining to the
access, level, quality and affordability of services that are currently being provided. Researchers were also interested in participants’ knowledge of the
free basic water policy and the relationship the LM has with communities. The workshops added texture to the information received from the
municipality and provided a unique overall ‘take’ different from that of municipal officials.
The four communities were diverse in their demographics and experience of water and sanitation services. Table 1 gives a summary of key
information about the communities.
Table 1: Summary of Community Contextual Information
Community Welverdiend Dingleydale Belfast Mkhuhlu Township
Location Remote rural village on the Northern
border (pop. 8322)
Rural scattered village in the Midlands
area (pop. 2227)
Rural dense village (pop. 6182) Formal urbanised town in Southern
area (pop. over 40,000)
Overview of Boreholes, communal standpipes, and Canal, rivers, communal taps
Yard taps, communal standpipes, rivers Household and yard taps and
Water
Services
rivers.
communal standpipes.
Water is pumped from boreholes into a
main reservoir. During the rainy
seasons rivers are used as a source of
water, and rain water is also harvested
in shallow dams (mainly for
construction and livestock).
Some areas suffer serious water
scarcities, and the section where
refugees stay (Twanano Village) has no
water services.
Since the early 1960s when the scheme
was established the irrigation canal has
been the major source of water. A river
nearby is also a major source of water.
There is an acute shortage of clean.
The small package plant established by
the Lebowa Government provides
purified water to the community,
however workshops revealed the plant
does not have the capacity to provide
water for the entire community. Very
few people access water from this
source (only 2 streets near the plant
receive purified water). The rest of the
community relies on raw canal water.
Two boreholes in the village pump
water into the Belfast reservoir. Many
households have yard connections
(most of which they have connected
themselves).
Households in closer proximity to the
reservoir receive more water than do
households which are far away from
the reservoir.
When the water quantity is low or
nonexistent, community members
access water via nearby rivers and
wells.
Water is provided to the township via
yard taps from the Hoxani treatment
plant which purifies water from the
Sabie River. Outside the township,
some areas have piped water with
communal taps and some still access
water from Sabie, Benjani, and
Xisimeleni Rivers

Community Welverdiend Dingleydale Belfast Mkhuhlu Township
Sanitation Pit latrines, ‘the bush’
Pit latrines, ‘the bush’
Pit latrines, few water-borne sewage Water-borne sewage, VIP and pit
Services
connections
latrines.
Free
Water
Basic
Residents generally use pit latrines they
have made themselves. Some
households are equipped with waterborne
sewage but cannot use it due to
lack of water.
Some residents have constructed pit
latrines, but many still do not have
access to any level of formal sanitation
and continue to use ‘the bush’.
The main form of sanitation services is
the pit latrine, which community
members have constructed themselves.
The health clinics and a few other
places (mostly businesses) are equipped
with water-borne sewage.
The community does not pay for water. The community does not pay for water. They do not pay for water, although
when water is scarce residents hire a
bakkie (R70) to fetch water from nearby
villages.
FBW is reflected on household bills.
Participants were aware of the FBW
policy, but some were unsure if they
actually received it.
In order to investigate the workings behind community experiences with water services, this study gathered information regarding the provision of
water by four different providers: Bushbuckridge Local Municipality, the former Bohlabela District Municipality, the Department of Water Affairs
and Forestry, and the Bushbuckridge Water Board - the bulk supplier. Unfortunately, very little data– historical or current – was available from any of
the providers for use in the analysis of this research.
The responsibility for water and sanitation services delivery has rested with all four of these providers over the past 12 years. Prior to 2006, BLM was
the WSP for urban areas only, so DWAF and the former Bohlabela DM were the service providers for the three rural areas included in this study, but
when Bohlabela was disestablished BLM became responsible for services delivery in the rural areas as well as the urban. Currently the municipality is
serving as both Water Services Authority and Water Services Provider – this arrangement has been in place since 2006. As the WSA, it must oversee
the use and management of water resources. As the WSP, it must ensure water is provided to users under its jurisdiction.
7

Overview of Findings
1. Bushbuckridge LM is currently struggling to perform all of the necessary functions,
although water and sanitation services do remain a top priority of officials.
Bushbuckridge LM faces incredible challenges in its water and sanitation services provision due
to the historic underdevelopment of the area under apartheid (and thus little existing
infrastructure), as well as limited capacity in terms of both human and financial resources. This
research raised concerns regarding whether Bushbuckridge LM had the capacity to take over the
WSA and WSP functions from Bohlabela District Municipality (DM) and DWAF. High-level
officials expressed they felt the LM was ready but they also stated that, while there is talk of
empowering local government, responsibilities are often assigned to municipalities without the
necessary funds to perform well.
With widespread poverty and unemployment, and a historical lack of infrastructure that has
created a need for extensive expansion and capital expenditure in one of the poorest areas of
KwaZulu-Natal, clearly there are significant practical challenges the LM is facing. One of the
biggest contributors to the persistent problems in the provision of water and sanitation services
is that the areas currently served by Bushbuckridge LM have undergone several changes in WSA
and WSP arrangements since the establishment of a democratic government in 1994.
However, there has been significant progress made toward improving water services since
Bushbuckridge LM took over the function from Bohlabela DM. While there are no comparative
figures to use, anecdotal evidence shows progress has been made, particularly in the first six
months of 2008. Despite recent advancements, and continued efforts to improve these services,
the majority of Bushbuckridge LM residents currently receive services which are below-
Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) standards 4 .
2. There remain massive backlogs across the LM, but urban areas and larger towns
receive higher levels of service than rural communities.
The majority of Bushbuckridge LM residents continue to receive services which are below RDP
standards. According to the 2006/07 WSDP:
• More than 60 percent of households do not have any access to potable water
• 16 percent have access to tap water (standpipe, yard or household connections),
• 11 percent rely on boreholes; and,
• 3 percent accessing water via springs and rivers 5 .
The urban areas did appear to have more reliable water services than the rural ones. Mkhuhlu
residents (within the town boundary) expressed that they have sufficient water but that they were
dissatisfied with maintenance, sanitation, and cost of their services. They did feel they were
receiving a better water service than community members in rural areas just outside the town.
4 A standpipe within 200m (which provides 25 litres per person per day) for water and Ventilated Improved Pit
(VIP) latrine for sanitation
5 WSDP 2006/07

Similar to the issues with water supply, poor sanitation remains a problem, particularly in the
densely populated settlement clusters and dispersed small settlements. According to the South
African National Roads Agency 6 :
• 84 percent of the population does not receive sanitation services at a level consistent with
the RDP standard
• Approximately 80 percent of the households in the municipal area use pit latrines. This
is of particular concern as extensive use of unlined pit latrines can pose pollution threats
to surface and groundwater sources.
Urban areas generally receive better sanitation services than rural areas 7 . In Mkhuhlu, there are
both flush toilets and outside latrines. The pit latrines are not emptied by the municipality, and
residents expressed concerns about hygiene problems in houses that did not have indoor toilets.
In rural areas residents mostly built latrines themselves, which were not emptied by any of the
water service providers; some residents without toilets would use “the bush”.
3. Continual upheaval of organizations and allocation of functions has likely had a
negative effect on services delivery.
The fact that water and sanitation services have not seen great improvements could be attributed
to the repeated shifting of responsibilities and WSA/WSP functions. In brief, the responsibility
for water and sanitation services in the Bushbuckridge LM has changed hands four times since
1994:
• Pre-1994: the Bushbuckridge area was part of a homeland area, whose governments
were under-resourced in funds and staff, so little infrastructure was developed
• 1995-2000: Transitional Local Councils (TLCs) and DWAF were in charge of water
and sanitation services, but there was still confusion about which organisation was
in charge of which responsibilities and areas, so little progress was made.
• 2000-2005: Bohlabela DM was established and charged with taking over water and
sanitation services from DWAF. A significant amount of capacity building
occurred within the DM from DWAF and USAID programmes to ensure the DM
was able to manage water and sanitation services delivery. Some expansion of the
system occurred.
• 2006-present: The DM entity was disestablished, the LM was allocated the WSA
function, and much of the institutional knowledge and capacity built up before this
time was lost in the transition.
Although other parts of SA have also faced upheaval and change in responsibility as a result of
the country’s transition, BBR has experienced an extreme case, undergoing three major
upheavals since 1994. First, the transitional local councils transferred the WSA/WSP functions
to Bohlabela DM (urban) and DWAF (rural). Then, while Bohlabela DM staff was receiving
extensive training, there was a re-demarcation of municipal lines in the area and the DM was
disestablished. Finally, the assets of the DM were meant to be transferred to the BBR LM so it
could undertake both the WSA and WSP functions. Further complicating each shift in
6 NRA 2008: http://www.nra.co.za/live/content.phpItem_ID=52
7 One exception in Welverdiend was where an area with residents who were mostly former refugees from
Mozambique, was equipped with toilets by the former homeland government in the 1980’s.
9

institutional arrangement is the fact that the bulk water supplier is a separate entity, the BBR
Water Board.
Figure 1 shows a timeline of the shifting responsibilities between organisations responsible for
the WSA/WSP functions.
Figure 2: Timeline of Organisations Responsible for BBR LM WSA/WSP Functions
Pre-1994
WSA
function¹
Lebowa
Gazankulu
KaNgwane
1995-2000
WSA function
Transitional
Local Councils
(TLCs)²
2000-2006
WSA
Bohlabela District
Municipality
2006-present
WSA
Bushbuckridge
Local Municipality
Pre-1994
WSP
Lebowa
Gazankulu
KaNgwane
Homelands
1995-2000 WSP
Towns: TLCs
Rural areas: DWAF
2000-2006
WSP
Towns: Bushbuckridge LM
Rural: DWAF was
transferring to Bohlabela DM,
2006-present
WSP
Towns: Bushbuckridge LM
Rural: DWAF (transferring
to BLM)
*The Bushbuckridge Water Board has been the bulk supplier from 1995 to the present day.
**It is important to note that the legal establishment of the “Water Services Authority” and “Water Services Provider” only
occurred in December 1997 as part of the Water Services Act. Prior to that time, there was not really a separate legal entity
called a WSA, although the function was being performed.
***Transitional Local Councils took over the function of WSA as they operated as small municipalities in all areas. However,
DWAF took over the WSP function at the time and the TLCs had little to do with water services.
Being in this perpetual state of transition has had negative effects on a few different important
aspects:
Loss of Institutional Knowledge: According to interviewees, the disestablishment of the
Bohlabela District Municipality in 2006 caused substantial disruption to services delivery. As
mentioned, significant resources were invested in the development of municipal services. These
resources included funds for operations, maintenance, and capital projects as well as skills
training and other capacity building support. USAID provided R60 million to assist the former
Bohlabela DM to develop plans for water services, management and administrative mechanisms,
and technical water infrastructure. From 2000-06, DWAF worked closely with the DM
(spending a significant amount of time and resources) on the development of staff capacity,
workable structures, systems and policies. While Bohlabela DM was in operation, there was
some continuity in processes because DWAF continued to operate the rural schemes. Once
Bohlabela DM was disestablished completely new transfer plans and agreements had to be
developed.
The disestablishment of the DM in 2006 may have resulted in much of the benefit from the
institutional capacity work to be lost. Interviewees reported that policy tools developed under
Bohlabela DM such as tariff structures, assessment, and plans for water infrastructure and
management systems, have been discarded rather than embraced and utilised by Bushbuckridge
LM. From 2006 until the WD-SA initial research was conducted in 2007, several key areas
relating to water services were in disarray: the Section 78 process had not begun; reporting
arrangements for transferred and seconded staff had not been established; there was no Water
Services Manager or organogram; and key policies had not yet been established.
10

Lowered Staff Productivity: In such transitions it is necessary to ensure a solid transition plan
that includes: clear expectations and rewards for staff, consistent and practical accountability and
monitoring mechanisms, and transparent communication. The organisational and human
resource structures of Bushbuckridge LM were still being finalised in 2007, and, at that time no
single organogram existed. Furthermore, these transfers resulted in imbalances in numbers of
staff. There were 500 people seconded to the LM from DWAF, whilst Bushbuckridge LM’s
entire staff complement was only 430. There were no newly published pay grades and staff
members were using the different pay grades that had been used by the three different
organisations (Bohlabela DM, BBR LM and DWAF). Some of the DWAF/DM staff feared the
LM might reduce their salaries or benefits they had previously enjoyed.
Because many staff members were not sure to whom they should report during the transition
period - or whether or not they might be retrenched - they had fewer incentives to perform well
or take extra initiative to ensure quality provision of water to residents. In addition, the lack of
clarity regarding staff reporting arrangements has also led to a lack of monitoring and
accountability mechanisms to ensure effective water services provision. In the end, the
uncertainty about seconded staff members and work plans almost certainly impacted negatively
on the delivery of services.
Strained Intra-organizational Relationships: The working relationships between the
Bushbuckridge Water Board, Bohlabela DM, DWAF and Bushbuckridge LM have been strained
over the years. Cooperation and a strong, effective working relationship are absolutely essential,
and the tense relationship between the various institutions involved in water services has posed a
serious challenge to effective and adequate water services for residents of Bushbuckridge LM.
Communication plays a key role in efficiency, but as might be expected from the staff transfer
issues, communication among various staff and management of the municipality was frequently
not consistent and clear. It was believed by some of the officials interviewed that several staff
from the municipality and DWAF could be working on the same issue without the others
knowing. In one example given, a regional officer had been trying to reach a technical manager
for over a month. Part of the reason communication might be poor is that staff themselves do
not appear to trust or feel confident in each other, partly due again to a lack of clarity around
roles and reporting, as mentioned above.
This lack of trust is particularly true of the relationship between the staff that was seconded from
DWAF and the DM in relation to the staff that has always worked with Bushbuckridge Local
Municipality. As mentioned, the former DWAF and Bohlabela DM staff members have been
transferred twice now, and for some time it was not clear to whom they should report, nor was it
clear what their specific duties should be. Over this time period they also did not have
permanent contracts, which led to feelings of job insecurity. In some cases, this makes staff feel
like they want to hold onto information so that they remain valuable to Bushbuckridge LM.
Another potential reason for the tense relationships may be related to issues with revenue
collection and the unavailability of reliable financial figures. According to BWB officials, the
Water Board was owed approximately R50 million at the time of signing their memorandum of
understanding, but they only received R4 million. This dispute was ongoing and neither seemed
willing to concede when researchers visited in 2007.
2008 Follow Up
Upon return to Bushbuckridge LM in May 2008 and subsequent telephone interviews, it became
clear that some progress had been made in establishing the administrative/management side of
11

water services. There is a Water Services Department, with a Water Services Provision Manager
having been appointed in January 2008. The manager was interviewed to further supplement the
research from 2007. Additionally, the LM appears to be addressing the lack of clarity in human
resources management. In the follow-up trip all of the staff interviewed had been informed of
whom they report to and their contracts had been signed. The transition is still underway and
there is still some adjustment necessary, but key elements ensuring job security are now in place,
including: the creation of an organogram that makes clear the reporting lines for staff; the
establishment of a single pay grade system; and official, signed, contracts for all staff.
Bushbuckridge LM had also made significant progress toward assuming its role as WSP with
short and long term plans for ensuring adequate water services delivery plans are being
developed and will be implemented.
Additionally, researchers found that a task team had been formed to deal with the payment
problem between the organizations. Representatives from the Water Board, Bushbuckridge LM
and DWAF all served on the task team. An audit of costs of providing bulk supply was
conducted which determined R2.9 million was required to provide the service (to break even
with no profit). The entities agreed to a temporary arrangement - that Bushbuckridge LM would
pay the BWB R3 million per month while the service level agreement (SLA) is being finalised.
With the finalisation of the SLA they expect to reach an agreement to settle all debts and
establish a permanent plan for payment. A positive working relationship is critical and this joint
agreement shows that some progress has been made since the first research trip in 2007.
4. The municipality reports that it struggles to secure adequate funding and staff
capacity to eradicate backlogs in water and sanitation.
and
5. Any financial analysis of water and sanitation services provision is complicated by a
lack of reliable data and the fact that data is spread across all three organizations
involved.
Researchers found it worrisome that very few facts or figures were available at the time of the
research. In addition to sparse financial data from the LM, DWAF, the Bushbuckridge LM and
the Bushbuckridge Water Board all partly pay the operation and maintenance costs of providing
the services, but there were no consolidated figures across the three different organisations for
the actual cost of these services. This makes it difficult to assess the financial viability of the
water and sanitation services, as well as the ability of users to pay for the services. Nonetheless,
some evidence emerged to show that part of the issue may be low ability to raise funds via taxes
and services charges, causing a reliance on government grants for funds and a lack of adequate
financing overall.
Bushbuckridge LM’s Financial Situation
Typical of the former homeland areas, Bushbuckridge LM has very high unemployment and
indigency rates (often over 90 percent), and limited commercial activities that can be directly
measured in monetary terms. Therefore, residents often depend on subsistence agriculture,
government grants and remittances from relatives to survive, while the Bushbuckridge LM is
largely reliant on government grants for income. This leaves little room for cross-subsidisation
as there are few water-intensive businesses, few households paying for water, and even fewer
wealthy households in the LM.
In the past, Bohlabela DM did make an effort to collect what revenue it could from industry and
government departments. According to a former consultant running the retail water project that
12

worked with Bohlabela DM, in 2002/3 an audit of 300 businesses was conducted. This initiative
involved the creation of a database and negotiations with businesses to collect arrears dating
back to 2000. As a result of these efforts approximately R18 million in additional funds were
reportedly collected. However, possibilities for additional ongoing sources of revenue are
limited. Some of the officials interviewed estimated that R300,000 could be collected per month,
but they also guessed the cost for supply of the present usage would exceed that revenue
collection, at a cost of approximately R1 million per month 8 .
In the budget developed for Bushbuckridge LM in 2007/08 9 :
• Approximately 85 percent of the total income for the municipality came from Equitable
Share, Municipal Income Grants (MIG) and other grants 10 .
• 7 percent of income came from water and other municipal service tariffs, while only 5.6
percent was brought in from rates and taxes.
Bushbuckridge LM has been working on the development of a new tariff structure, but at the
time of this research the one being used was inherited from the former Bohlabela DM. Payment
has only been collected from residents in the former R293 towns, and even in these areas only a
modest recovery rate is being achieved 11 . The majority of households have not been paying
municipal rates, service charges or levies. Urban residents interviewed said unemployment and
lack of adequate income impacts greatly on their ability to pay.
Bushbuckridge Water Board Financing
Another potential problem in terms of operations and maintenance of the bulk supply system is
that the Bushbuckridge Water Board has also found it difficult to access additional funds due to
ongoing disputes about the ownership of the assets it operates. One Water Board official
interviewed maintained the BWB owns the assets it operates; however, no written agreement
could be produced to substantiate this claim. According to DWAF officials, the intention was
that all assets would be transferred to the WSA – first Bohlabela DM (until 2006), and then
Bushbuckridge LM – which would mean asset ownership was never transferred to the Water
Board, only operational responsibility. While this may be positive for the LM, without these
assets it is very difficult, if not impossible, for the Water Board to access loan funding, which
makes it dependent on DWAF or other grant funding for any improvements to the works they
operate. This may make the operations of the Water Board less efficient than might be possible
if it were able to access loan funding more easily.
8 Exact numbers were not made available to researchers at the time of the study. Further financial research is required to ascertain what amount
of revenue the Bushbuckridge LM actually collects and what amount it should be collecting.
9 PMG 2008: http://www.pmg.org.za/files/docs/080505bushbuckridge1.pdf
10 Previously low capacity meant that some of the national funds transferred to the LM were not fully utilised, and contract issues resulting from
the re-demarcation caused other funds to not be transferred at all for a period of time. However, in the 2007/08 fiscal year it appeared the LM
was on track to spend the entirety of its grant income.
11 There were not figures available on recovery rates at the time of the study.
13

6. While many residents do not pay for water, service levels remain low and the effects
of the Free Basic Water (FBW) policy remain unclear.
Researcher found mixed results about the affordability of water and the application of the FBW
policy. Residents in the three rural areas studied are not charged for the water they receive.
Outside of the towns, some areas have piped water and some do not. The areas immediately
outside of towns are provided with communal standpipes, though residents also use the Sabie,
Benjani, and Xisimeleni rivers to access water when there is not sufficient quantity or quality of
water coming from the standpipes. A few of the households near standpipes paid to receive
their own yard connections, though these did not appear to be authorised by the municipality so
it was unclear as to who was offering the connection service. Other rural and deep rural areas
have not yet been provided with standpipes and use boreholes, springs or rivers. This means
residents who do not live in towns do receive ‘free’ water, but a lack of reticulation
infrastructure, the serious scarcity of water, and the inability for people to carry large quantities
of water over long distances mean access to sufficient amounts of good-quality water is limited.
Residents who live inside the town boundaries of Mkhuhlu have household water connections
with credit meters. Workshop participants in Mkhuhlu were aware of the FBW allotment, and
told researchers it is reflected in their bills, though they still questioned whether they were
actually credited as they considered their water bills to be high. Participants were confused about
why household bills might be similar in total for a person who stays alone and a large family.
Overall, participants agreed they found the price of water to be higher than most households
could afford. While they did feel they received a higher level of service than community
members in rural areas just outside the town, according to the ward councillors the town’s
residents felt they were subsidising those residents living outside of the town who were not
paying for water services. In some cases, people living in areas just outside the formal boundary
of Mkhuhlu have ‘borrowed’ water (with or without permission) from their neighbours who
reside within the city. This results in higher costs for their neighbours and can also lead to
disconnection for non-payment when those who receive the bills cannot afford the higher costs.
There are plans for meters to be installed in Calcutta; residents have mixed feelings about meters
as some feel it is reducing their access to water while others feel it would be easier to monitor use
and that infrastructure might be better maintained if the community is paying.
7. Lack of RDP-standard access to water and sanitation services is creating health
issues across all of the communities researched.
The water supply systems in Bushbuckridge LM consist of both surface and ground water
schemes, though ground water schemes mostly serve rural localities. As mentioned, one of the
major problems in the areas where research was conducted was water scarcity and inadequate
infrastructure. When water is not available, community members utilise alternative sources for
the gathering and storage of water, which often has serious consequences for health and hygiene.
Workshop participants in all four of the research areas reported people in their communities use
alternative water sources depending on water quantity and quality; these sources were utilised
more frequently in rural areas. The urgency of a plan to incorporate emergency water service
provision measures has been made clear by the impacts on residents’ health as evident in the
reports of ongoing water-borne illnesses and the formal concerns raised by Provincial Health
Services. The often overwhelmed health department staff and volunteers currently shoulder the
additional burden of inadequate water services.
14

In Mkhuhlu, Bushbuckridge LM is providing water services within the town boundary and
residents reported they generally have access to sufficient amounts of water and the water is
generally of good quality. Mkhuhlu residents sometimes use river water, but generally this is only
people who live just outside the town boundary and are thus farther away from water services
infrastructure.
In rural areas water is in shorter supply than in urban communities. To differing degrees, all
three rural communities studied experienced problems with the quantity of water available,
though Dingleydale was understood to experience the most severe shortages, and residents in all
three utilised alternative sources of water. This use of alternative sources has led to reported
water-borne illnesses in all three rural areas studied, including bilharzia, diarrhoea and cholera.
In Dingleydale and Belfast this is largely because the water is shared with animals and used for
various cleaning and sewage purposes, along with drinking:
• Dingleydale’s irrigation canals are the residents’ main source of water – they are also used
by livestock and dead animals have been found rotting in the same water they use for
cooking and drinking. One hundred and forty-four residents attended the Dingleydale
community workshop. The residents said the quality of the water from the plant was
fine when they have been able to access it, but they reported they often do not bother to
try to use the standpipes because the water runs so rarely from them. They questioned
how the community can have large, thriving, irrigated fields that are watered using these
irrigation canals, but residents still have an inadequate drinking water supply.
• Belfast uses the Sabie River a great deal while Welverdiend accesses water from some
local dams. Both of these sources are also frequented by large animals from surrounding
nature reserves, which might explain why Belfast has extremely high incidences of
bilharzia. There was a public health education programme underway in 2007, but the
clinic was still full of people being tested for bilharzia. Residents who do use the river
were aware of the dangers and were concerned about becoming ill as it might lead to
being unable to care for their children and families or pay their bills, but did not feel they
had other realistic options.
Welverdiend is also experiencing difficulties:
• First, there is often not a sufficient amount of water to supply the entire community. In
sections where water is scarce, taps are left open with open containers to let people know
if water is available. In these sections, when the water is trickling, people go home or run
other errands while the containers are left on the tap to fill. In other areas long queues
form at communal taps and some residents have to pay to hire cars to fetch water from
other villages, while others walk distances of up to a kilometre to the nearest stand pipe.
Additionally, participants complained the water is “salty” and has a bad taste, so they are
not sure if it is clean. They reported that the water did not seem good for their garden
plants (the dam water was preferable) and wondered if it could then be good for them.
Residents also reported that they sometimes get stomach cramps from drinking the water
from the boreholes.
Many of the problems with water services in the area can be traced back to the Lebowa,
Gazankulu and KaNgwane homeland administrations. While there have been improvements and
work toward upgrading infrastructure, the lack of infrastructure from pre-1994 and the highly
rural nature of the LM means infrastructure is expensive and can be complicated to provide, and
15

the Bushbuckridge LM does not have either the staff capacity or financial resources to
implement such a system quickly. Workshop participants understood infrastructure could not be
brought to everyone in a short time, but felt that the real problem was that, in the meanwhile,
residents are not provided with disinfectants for the dirty water. Participants recommended the
LM explore this as a stop-gap option while infrastructure is being extended. While it might not
fully solve the problem they felt it would certainly be an improvement.
8. In addition to illness, lack of access to clean water causes other difficulties for
communities.
In addition to widespread illness caused by unclean water, lack of access to clean, adequate water
supply causes other issues in communities. Women are disproportionately affected by the lack
of adequate water access, due to their role as caretakers of their families and communities. In
communities in Bushbuckridge LM, as across most of South Africa, it is generally the women
who are responsible for fetching the water. In many cases, they have to walk long distances or
fetch water from rivers in unsafe areas, putting themselves at risk for crime, animal attacks, and
being hit by cars. In Belfast, when water is scarce residents cross a busy tar road to fetch water
and do washing in the Sabie River. This has led to some accidents causing physical harm or
death both while crossing the road and while at the river as many animals from Kruger Park use
the river as a watering hole, including crocodiles, buffalo, and elephants.
Women also take on the role of caring for the ill, elderly, and for orphans, and more water is
needed to care for the ill, including people living with AIDS. It is the women in these
communities who subsidise water services by walking long distances to fetch water, paying
money to drivers to fetch water, washing clothes and cleaning houses of the sick, the elderly, and
orphans, as well as ensuring hygiene. This increasing burden on women places general pressure
on the social fabric of the community at large, and this increased pressure is not likely to be
sustainable in the long-term.
9. Despite reported scarcities of water, BBR does not currently suffer from drought and
natural water resources in the area are reportedly sufficient. Bulk water operations and
infrastructure is thought to provide a consistent supply; however, much of the water
does not reach users through a reticulated system, and contamination of natural sources
is a significant issue.
It is clear that the current water supply system does not have sufficient capacity to cope with
demands; even with standpipes in the area some communities do not receive water for days,
weeks, and sometimes months. While residents across all of the communities are experiencing
shortages, this is not due to an overall scarcity of bulk water sources in the area, nor, it seems,
the management of the bulk system.
According to the 2006/07 WSDP, the Bushbuckridge LM has adequate water resources that, if
exploited, would be sufficient to supply residents in the area. There is potential for increased
regional bulk water supply schemes from the recently completed Injaka Dam, as well as
possibilities for future supply from the Sabie River. The area falls partly in the Olifants (Sand
River sub-catchment) and partly in the Incomati (Sabie River sub-catchment) catchments. Both
of these catchments supply inter-basin transfer schemes to mining and industrial developments
on the highveld.
16

The Bushbuckridge Water Board is successfully operating the bulk infrastructure and providing
fairly consistent supply of bulk water 12 . Additionally, there have been attempts at improving
water infrastructure. For example, the Injaka dam was completed and has the capacity to supply
the entire area with sufficient bulk water; but, the bulk and connector infrastructure is not in
place yet and is not expected for a few years.
On the reticulation side, a large amount of water is going to waste: non-revenue water was 41
percent in 2006, with most of the loss coming from leakage. While the bulk system could be
further expanded and improved, interviewees indicated most of the issues have been caused by
the slow expansion and poor maintenance of the reticulation system.
10. The poor condition of infrastructure overall is causing problems with operations and
maintenance, resulting in reduced access for residents even within the areas served by
municipal infrastructure. It furthermore caused high water losses, which are expensive
for the LM.
There was no information available from the municipality or other WSPs on maintenance times,
but residents in all four areas studied generally felt that there was a long delay for maintenance
and repairs, and the three rural areas studied reported much longer response times than
Mkhuhlu. In Mkhuhlu town, the response time was usually up to one week whereas in Belfast,
Welverdiend, and Dingleydale, response time was anywhere from several days up to several
months. Workshop participants in all of the communities were frustrated with the slow
response time, and reported it often forced them to resort to using alternative sources, such as
canal water, which are often contaminated.
Part of the delay in maintenance time might be due to the inferior condition of the infrastructure
overall. According to the 2006/07 WSDP, the network is generally in poor condition, which
means there are numerous requests for repairs and maintenance, perhaps more than can be
handled quickly by the current staff. For instance there were approximately 400 boreholes
managed by DWAF, a relatively large number for one WSP.
Additionally, officials interviewed told researchers that the remote location of Bushbuckridge
LM presents a challenge in terms of procuring parts for maintaining and repairing infrastructure.
Key parts necessary for maintenance are not available within the municipality and these parts
must be delivered from Gauteng, which can take up to a few months. Furthermore, maintenance
managers reported that while their budget included only what was estimated for maintenance of
the system, some of the problems they encountered required additional funds for construction of
new infrastructure.
It is difficult to calculate what quantity of water is being used and how much is lost because the
majority of residents are not billed and user amounts are not measured, but ‘non-revenue’ water
is estimated to be high. This is because, in addition to the poor condition of the infrastructure,
there are large numbers of unauthorised connections - together these cause high water losses (41
percent or more). While no figures were available with respect to the budget, this situation costs
the WSPs significant amounts of money in lost clean water moved through the system but never
12 It would not be reasonable to compare the performance of the Water Board with the LM, however, as bulk
operation is a straightforward technical function and thus relatively easy compared with ensuring adequate
reticulation that works socially, financially and practically.
17

eceived and has a negative effect on the services received by residents because while sufficient
amounts of water are reportedly treated 13 , much of the clean water is lost in transfer.
With regards to sanitation, the biggest concern of participants was that VIPs, once installed, were
not being emptied by a WSP. Residents felt these latrines were dangerous for children to use,
and that flies and mosquitoes often gather and breed by these latrines, spreading germs and
disease. Flush toilets also posed a serious problem in areas with insufficient amounts of water, as
they could obviously not work when water was scarce.
11. Communication with users is an area in which the LM could greatly improve.
The responses of community members indicated there was very little direct communication
between users and their respective WSPs. The lack of transparency within Bushbuckridge LM
has been observed and concerns were expressed by municipal staff and officials interviewed, as
well as by Bushbuckridge LM residents. There were no consistent, formalised, monitored
processes for user involvement in water services provision that could be identified by municipal
officials or community members. Even high-level officials in Bushbuckridge LM were not aware
of the need for a “consumer charter” or the fact that one had been developed under Bohlabela
DM.
In terms of community participation in planning and decisions, some residents in Belfast felt
they were part of decisions to a small degree, whereas most other workshop participants felt they
were often informed of decisions rather than truly consulted for their input. In all areas,
residents told researchers they report any problems in terms of breakages or leaking pipes to
their local Community Development Forum and/or to their local Councillor, whose
responsibility it is to follow up and ensure repairs are made. The community development
committees and ward councillors do meet regularly with their respective communities, but while
residents report water service problems they complained that there is rarely any report-back to
the community about what was done to improve the situation. Workshop participants were
concerned that, despite the fact that they had reported the problems, issues were not always
resolved and the infrastructure had not been improved, especially in the three rural areas.
Officials from different entities said they expected that communication with users will improve
as Bushbuckridge LM takes over the WSP function, pointing to the advantage of having a locally
accountable water service authority and provider; previously DWAF was perceived as not being
fully accountable to the local community since it is a national department. In addition, Bohlabela
DM was also perceived to have not been as accountable to Bushbuckridge residents as they LM
will be since it oversaw operations in many local municipalities and might not have been as
concerned with Bushbuckridge.
13 The DWAF staff members responsible for providing reticulation services have continued to operate the smaller
local treatment plants (which will eventually be replaced by the proposed regional works at Hoxani and Injaka). The
design capacity of treatment works supplying the area is in the order of 12000 Ml/ year with numerous boreholes
and other untreated sources adding capacity to supply an additional 6Ml per year.
18

12. The sustainability of the current water and sanitation system is of some concern.
However, the amount of progress made by the time the research team returned in 2008
was promising.
The sustainability of water services provision in Bushbuckridge LM is of great concern. In
addition to the substantial backlogs, particularly in the rural areas, the LM’s 2006/07 IDP
estimated a projected population growth rate of between 2.4 percent and 4 percent. Taking into
account the impacts of HIV/AIDS, 2.5 percent growth in water demand has been assumed for
the area. Bushbuckridge LM will need to improve its financial accountability, staff capacity and
funds allocation in order to properly provide adequate water services to all residents in urban and
rural areas.
Fortunately, positive steps have recently been taken and the LM seems to be making encouraging
progress in certain areas. Much of the progress seems attributable to building staff capacity
through hiring experienced senior managers, as well as working toward a more cooperative
relationship between Bushbuckridge LM, DWAF, and the Bushbuckridge Water Board. Some
of the positive improvements included:
• Senior managers with solid experience have been hired, including experienced WSP and
corporate services managers. The recruitment process is also underway for a WSA
manager.
• LM management is in the process of finalising structures and systems, creating an
enabling environment to perform its functions and integrate other responsibilities with
its current WSP functions into a single municipal structure and system.
• Contracts have been signed and reporting roles clarified (according to management).
• An organogram has been created which clarifies staff reporting mechanisms.
• DWAF Mpumalanga has taken a supportive role in building capacity.
• Attempts to repair and improve the relationship between BLM and BWB:
o A temporary agreement of an amount that Bushbuckridge LM will pay to
Bushbuckridge Water Board for its services.
o A service-level agreement between Bushbuckridge LM and Bushbuckridge Water
Board is in progress, facilitated by DWAF Mpumalanga.
• A temporary/emergency plan for water to be provided to areas without adequate access.
The provision of water tankers to these areas was meant to be approved soon after the
completion of a tender process (by the end of June).
• Two initiatives have begun to support the LM in the building of institutional capacity so
it is able to fulfil its WSA and WSP functions.
o Siyenza Manje, funded through the Development Bank of Southern Africa,
places retired people with technical skills in the municipality for support.
o Masibambane is a DWAF-led programme that provides funding to the
municipality to contract outside workers with the skills and expertise required for
technical and other support functions.
The LM is also currently undertaking the section 78 process, which will also largely determine
the future of the Bushbuckridge Water Board. Depending on the outcome, Bushbuckridge LM
may either appoint the Water Board to continue as bulk water services provider, or the
municipality itself may take over this function. In such a case it is likely the Water Board would
be absorbed into Bushbuckridge LM. This may simplify some of the water service functions
19

upfront, but there are also political undertones to this decision which reflect divisions between
some Water Board members and municipal officials.
These steps taken by Bushbuckridge LM hopefully indicate water and sanitation services delivery
may improve in the short to medium term for many residents.
20

Recommendations and Conclusion
It is evident that the Bushbuckridge area faces many challenges with regard to water services, and
whatever institutional arrangement is eventually decided upon will have to address these
challenges. The disestablishment of the Bohlabela District Municipality has had a major impact
and has resulted in further delays in addressing problems. To some degree the decision to
disestablish Bohlabela DM seems to be based on political considerations, among other reasons.
Politics in the area has - and likely will continue to – shape decisions regarding service delivery
and investment in infrastructure. Additionally, the lack of reliable data seriously affects the
ability of the LM or others to properly assess the effects of any intervention, programme or
policy.
It is not clear from this study that the Section 78 process (required due to the disestablishment of
Bohlabela DM) of decision making regarding institutional arrangements is benefiting the average
citizen in Bushbuckridge LM, when there are so many urgent and practical challenges facing the
municipality. It would be highly beneficial if strategic and objective scrutiny of the possible
arrangements were to take place without being coloured by tensions between the institutions. A
further look at the outcomes of the capacity-building process for the Bohlabela DM might be
integrated and utilized so as to benefit Bushbuckridge LM as WSA/WSP and potentially ease its
burden when taking on these tasks. The welcoming and integration of former Bohlabela DM
staff and management, where appropriate, would be one easy way to bring the learning and gains
from the Bohlabela DM capacity building process to assist the Bushbuckridge LM in its
challenges.
Any more changes in institutional arrangements that are implemented would appear to be sidestepping
the real causes of the problems as identified through this study. The Section 78 process
should be seen as a parallel process to improving water services in the immediate term (for
instance, providing disinfectants for non-potable water). A concern would be that sometimes
people see changing the arrangement as a panacea that will solve all water problems, rather than
identifying the true causes of water services inadequacies. It would benefit residents to put as
many resources as possible into ensuring short and medium term measures as well as emergency
measures (e.g. immediately sending tankers to all areas without sufficient water), are in place to
guarantee that residents have access to sufficient water immediately. Furthermore, institutional
arrangements for these kinds of areas might not necessarily work in the same way as
arrangements in larger urban municipalities with a significant economic base; and thus
assumptions underlying any analysis may not necessarily be true or even possible in these areas.
As millions of South Africans still go without water running through their taps, accurate
identification of the causes of inadequate water access is of critical importance in ensuring the
basic human right of adequate access to safe, clean water. The study has identified several causes
that can be targeted for strategizing ways to improve water service delivery. These include
developing and implementing an effective management plan that includes monitoring and
accountability mechanisms; integrating all staff and building a cooperative team; finishing and
publishing the organogram with pay grades to instil feelings of job security; reviewing successes
and failures of all water service institutions and integrating knowledge gained to assist in building
capacity; implementing tight financial accounting systems that assist the municipality in
improving its services; and finally, to implement emergency, short term, and medium term plans
to ensure community members are able to access safe water.
Despite the enormous challenges facing the Bushbuckridge LM in undertaking the WSA and
WSP functions, municipal staff and officials interviewed showed serious and genuine concerns
21

about the water problems communities are facing. The regional officers, former DWAF staff,
and ward councillors all expressed that they are feeling extreme pressure from residents to ensure
that water is provided. With this attitude, and the support of DWAF and other capacity-building
initiatives, it is hoped Bushbuckridge LM will be making large improvements in water and
sanitation services delivery in the near future.
22