South Africa’s drop report is a constitutional warning, not just a technical one

The latest Drop Report confirms a troubling reality: South Africa’s water and wastewater systems are continuing to deteriorate. Compared with previous assessments, the decline in drinking water quality compliance and wastewater treatment performance is no longer marginal, it is systemic. This sustained regression points to structural failure rather than technical surprise.

Yet public debate often misplaces accountability. To understand why this trend persists, the findings must be interpreted through the lens of the Constitution. Section 27 guarantees everyone the right to access sufficient water, while Section 24 enshrines the right to an environment that is not harmful to health or wellbeing.

These rights are not abstract. They are operationalised through municipalities, which the Constitution explicitly assigns responsibility for water and sanitation services under Sections 152 and 156, read with Schedules 4B and 5B. It is not constitutionally mandated to operate infrastructure, run wastewater treatment works, or perform routine service delivery interventions.

[paywall]

Reporting—including the Drop Reports- is therefore a constitutional compliance mechanism, not a turnaround tool. This distinction matters. Expecting monitoring alone to reverse entrenched decline misunderstands the separation of powers and risks confusing diagnosis with treatment.

The President’s recent prioritisation of water is therefore welcome, but it must align with constitutional reality. Water security does not stop at dams and pipelines; it depends equally on reticulation, wastewater treatment, operation and maintenance, monitoring, and sustainable funding. Where wastewater systems fail, rivers are polluted, raw water quality deteriorates, and bulk supply—and economic activity—are inevitably compromised.

Any meaningful national response must therefore treat water supply and wastewater management as a single constitutional system. If water outcomes are to improve, COGTA cannot remain peripheral to the national response. Given the depth, duration, and scale of failure, it is no longer unreasonable to question whether aspects of the current institutional and constitutional allocation of functions remain fit for purpose under conditions of prolonged infrastructure stress.

A focused constitutional or legislative review aimed at restoring functionality rather than centralising authority may be necessary. Bulk water providers and Catchment Management Agencies have a direct interest in protecting water resource quality, possess stronger technical capability, and have demonstrated expertise in infrastructure development and long-term operations. Greater functional alignment or shared responsibility, under clear governance frameworks, could unlock capacity that municipalities demonstrably lack.

Encouragingly, innovation already exists within the system. Water Efficient Sanitation Systems (WESS) represent a critical turnaround mechanism deploying proven technologies, mobilising commercial partners, and enabling hybrid and full-scale delivery models. Importantly, existing legislation and regulation already provide space for alternative delivery approaches. What is required now is decisive implementation to translate policy intent into measurable impact and sustainable service outcomes.

[/paywall]