Water Boards (Vaal Central, Rand Water and Amatola) Business Plans; with Deputy Ministers

Video The Committee considered the 2025–2030 corporate plans of three water boards -- Vaal Central, Rand Water and Amatola -- and the Department’s accompanying overview. Overall, the presentations showed mixed performance across the sector. While Rand Water demonstrated strong financial health, high water-quality compliance and major infrastructure expansion, the remaining two displayed significant weaknesses, particularly Vaal Central. All three boards submitted compliant corporate plans and aligned their strategies with national priorities, but their ability to execute these plans remained heavily constrained by municipal non-payment, ageing infrastructure, and persistent operational risks. The Committee raised concerns about the worsening problem of municipal debt owed to the water boards. It noted that escalating arrears now threatened the financial sustainability of the entire sector, with individual municipalities owing billions and still failing to pay current accounts. Members questioned why payment agreements were repeatedly dishonoured, and whether current intervention mechanisms, including withholding of the equitable share, were adequate. They stressed that continued non-payment had direct consequences for communities, many of whom still experienced prolonged water outages despite the boards’ reported improvements. The Committee also questioned whether water boards were increasingly drifting beyond their core bulk-water mandate. It warned that taking on municipal distribution functions, reticulation responsibilities, and failing infrastructure could replicate the municipal crisis within the water boards themselves. Concerns were raised that absorbing distressed municipalities or operating special purpose vehicles without proper safeguards may expose stable boards to unsustainable financial and operational risks. Some Members questioned whether the shift in responsibilities was policy-driven or a reaction to municipal collapse, and whether oversight of these expansions was sufficiently rigorous. The Committee also scrutinised governance issues, particularly the credibility of board performance assessments. It argued that self-evaluation processes lacked independence and did not reflect the actual service delivery outcomes experienced by communities. It requested access to assessment tools, and questioned whether unqualified audit outcomes concealed operational failures, especially for Vaal Central, the entity serving long-troubled Free State municipalities. Members also asked for clarity on the feasibility and real consequences of previous and proposed mergers in the sector, pointing to earlier consolidations that had not delivered the expected service improvements. Financial viability was another central concern. Questions were asked regarding the liquidity levels, solvency, the recoverability of debtors’ books, and the long-term bankability of the water boards, particularly Vaal Central, the entity in the most critical state. Members highlighted that its debt exceeded R10 billion, infrastructure backlogs remained severe, and its largest customer continued to underpay by tens of millions monthly. Several Members stressed the need for extraordinary interventions, and argued that the Committee should summon the Matjhabeng municipality, which was responsible for the majority of the outstanding debt, to account for its conduct. The Committee also questioned capital expenditure performance, project delays, and the widening gap between allocated funding and actual spending on major infrastructure programmes. They asked whether slow delivery, vandalism risks, electricity constraints, and inadequate municipal capacity would undermine long-term investment, especially in areas already experiencing chronic supply failures. Further concerns related to the long-term sustainability of infrastructure handed over to struggling municipalities, especially where security, staffing, and maintenance capacity was absent. Members warned that expensive projects risked rapid deterioration once transferred, rendering grant-funded interventions ineffective. Lastly, Members expressed worry over the systemic instability in the Free State region, questioning whether outstanding legal rulings, failed municipal payment arrangements, and escrow mechanisms were being enforced. They urged the Committee to maintain firm oversight and to support legislative reforms that would enable more decisive interventions and ensure that water boards remained sustainable.