4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.16 Discussion of Household Key Findings
This section provides a discussion of the results of analysis of data that was obtained through household surveys.
4.16.1 Household level of satisfaction with water service received
In relation to the seventh research question (RQ 7: What is the household level of satisfaction with water services received between different income groups?), satisfaction levels differed greatly between high- and low-income communities, as all the high-income households indicated that they were satisfied with the water service provision that they were receiving while a significant percentage (42.5%) of low-income households indicated that they were not satisfied at all and a small (7.5%) percentage of the low-income households indicated that they were somewhat satisfied.
The participants‟ responses were generally attributed to the service provider‟s inconsistencies in terms of water connection and free water quantity. There were complaints that the households that were serviced by the municipalities (eThekwini and Msunduzi) were getting free water connection and more free water quantity, while the households that are serviced by the bulk water provider, Umgeni Water, have to pay a water connection fee of about R650, 00 and only have a small free amount of water.
Moreover, the dissatisfaction levels of the participants were based on poor accessibility, affordability constraints, poor service quality, water quality, free water quantity, inadequate arrangements of warning in terms of water supply disconnections, efficiency, meter reading concerns, delayed leakage response, threats of disconnection for non- payment and poor channels of communication.
These results are consistent with Smith and Green (2005) that satisfaction levels are based heavily on accessibility, rather than efficiency. According to Smith and Green (2005),
82
household satisfaction levels can be an important indicator, to provide a picture of the municipal performance in terms of water service delivery.
4.16.2 Barriers to improved water supply in the Mgeni Catchment
The households identified various barriers to improved water supply in the Mgeni Catchment (RQ 8: What are the perceived barriers to improved water service delivery in low-income communities?), where the affordability constraints was the most highlighted theme, with the majority of the respondents mentioning this theme. Poor channels of communication/poor leadership, poor water infrastructure and reliability constraints also received significant relevance according to the perceptions of the households.
These results are consistent with various studies (Dlamini, 2007; UNDP; 2007; Tissington et al., 2008; UNICEF, 2010; UNEP, 2010) that SA‟s municipalities are currently struggling to reduce the water service backlogs, especially for the rural poor.
4.16.3 Household/community contribution to water management
In relation to the research question (RQ 9: How do communities or households contribute to water management? (at community and household level)), the households indicated that they contribute to effective water management in various ways, including:
ensuring that they do not leave taps running;
reducing water costs by employing measures to save water, such as only using tap water for cooking, drinking, bathing and for religious purposes and they use rain and river water for washing, flushing, stocks, cleaning and gardening;
collecting and storing water in containers/buckets, rather than opening taps now and again;
detecting water leaks and reporting them to the municipality “even though the municipality takes too long to respond” and
collecting rain water and using it for washing and gardening, by reading water meter to check water consumption and reducing it, if it is too high.
83
4.16.4 Social equity: comparing water service provision between high- and low- income households/communities
In relation to the main research question under the household research design which enquired about whether or not water supply is the same between low- and high- income households in the Mgeni Catchment, the results revealed that this is not the case. Rather, that water supply is not the same between low- and high-income households i.e. high- income households are supplied with water in their houses, in the form of treated piped water, while most low-income households are only supplied with piped water to their yards and some of do not have a water connection to their houses or yards, but use the community tube well as their main source. The households that were using a community tube well indicated that they are not supplied with water in their homes because they cannot afford to pay a water connection fee of R650, 00, hence they use the community tube well as an alternative and have to walk relatively long distances to collect water.
Furthermore, a smaller percentage of the households indicated that they do not have access to treated pipe water and their main source of water is the unprotected river water.
However, it should also be borne in mind that these households indicated that they once had a connection to water, but after some time, their water connection supply ceased and the real reason for cessation of water supply to these households is not known.
These results are consistent with the reviewed literature (Dlamini, 2007; UNDP, 2007;
Tissington et al., 2008), while great progress has been made on water service provision in most areas. However, for many poor South African‟s, especially in the rural areas, access to sufficient water remains an unfulfilled promise.
The initial formulated hypothesis (water service provision is the same between the high- and low-income household in the Mgeni Catchment) is therefore rejected, because the evidence from the results clearly shows that water service provision between high- and low-income households in the Mgeni Catchment is not the same i.e. the high-income communities receive better water service provision than low-income communities.
84
4.16.5 Perceived links between water resource management and water services in the Mgeni Catchment
With regards to the links between water resource management (NWA) and water services (WSA) (RQ 10: How do water resource management (NWA) and water services (WSA) relate to each other?), the results revealed that the relation between the two is cyclic. This implies that it is a mutual and continuous relationship, where both the Acts inform each other. For example, when observing the key-informants‟ concerns about future water management in the Mgeni Catchment, it was revealed that both water resources and water services are affected by increases in water demand resulting from population growth. This is likely to be more problematic in future, as the rate of population growth increases each year. This will put a strain on water availability in terms of both quantity and quality, because the increase in demand is likely going to be associated with the increase in consumption, as well as the increase in the amount of waste produced. The increase in the amount of waste might results in wastewater treatment works dysfunctions due to the lack of cleaner technology for use in water treatment works. These will in turn, result in declining river water quality due to the poor quality of water being released from waste water treatment works into the rivers. The poor quality of water in rivers will mean the dwindling of water resources, because having many rivers with poor water quality is as good as having no rivers, as all i.e. treating water is more expensive than buying it from neighbouring countries.
Overall, this will result in the anticipations of the NWA not being achieved. Failing to achieve the objectives of the NWA on the protection and management of water resources in an integrated manner, will result in the purpose of the WSA, in terms of providing sufficient and safe water to human societies and other municipal water users, not being achieved, as there will be less, or no, clean water resources left to provide and supply water.
The linkages between water resources and water services were also demonstrated by both the perceived major constraints associated with the lack of policy implementation of NWA and the perceived barriers associated with improved water supply. The study results revealed that there is a direct causal relationship between major constraints associated with the implementation of the NWA and the barriers associated with improved water service provision, especially in poor communities i.e. the constraints associated with the
85
implementation of the NWA, such as the lack of institutional capacity and the lack of integrative instruments, are the main causes of barriers to improved water supply, such as inequity. This is because, with the absence of institutional capacity and the integrative policy instruments, the delegation of local water management responsibility to the local level is impossible, as this implies that there would be no capacity and instruments to facilitate water management at local level (CMS). As a result, a participatory approach would not be employed and therefore both the objectives of the NWA and WSA concerning social equity and sustainability will be contradicted and effective implementation issues will prevail.
These results are supported by various studies (DWAF, 2004, DWAF, 2005; DWAF, 2007;
DWAF, 2011) and suggest that, in order to achieve effective water management in SA, the links between the NWA and WSA should be acknowledged.
86