|
In most municipal jurisdictions, business consumers are not afforded any free water because they do not enjoy the same constitutional rights( of access to water) that natural persons( individuals) do.
Tembisan
|
any free water because they do not enjoy the same constitutional rights( of access to water) that natural persons( individuals) do.
Where the municipality does not provide business consumers with any free water, it is lawful for a municipality to terminate the supply of water to a commercial property entirely for non-payment of outstanding municipal debt, provided that the municipality has followed all the relevant laws relating to giving of notice of the disconnection, and the resolution of any dispute in relation to the amount outstanding on the account, before the disconnection takes place.
Residential consumers
Because natural persons are the bearers of the rights contained in the Constitution( and in particular of the right of access to water), municipalities that have the financial and infrastructural capacity to provide free water to persons living in their jurisdiction, often do this by means of providing for a stipulated free allowance in their water tariffs for each residential household.
This free allowance is meant to be delivered to a residential consumer( or rather, more specifically, to a residential household) through the municipality’ s existing water infrastructure, and once a municipality has pledged to provide this free minimum supply to everyone resident within its jurisdiction, termination of this supply becomes unlawful.
Enforcing free water rights
In an unreported case before the Gauteng Local Division( Johannesburg Division) of the High Court, known as Body Corporate of Edina Court v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, case number 2017 / 09362, the court declared that it was unlawful for a municipality to terminate the
|
supply of the six free kilolitres afforded by the City to each household per 30.4- day month.
This has set a precedent that can be used by persons who have been disconnected entirely and are no longer receiving their free water supply. It must be noted, however, that this order was obtained by the Body Corporate of Edina Court on an unopposed basis, and another court deciding the matter on an opposed basis could come to a different finding( that would‘ overrule’ this order).
City of Joburg 2017 / 18 tariffs
It is also important to note that as of 1 July 2017, the City of Johannesburg changed its water tariffs and no longer offers free water to all its residential residents. The only residents to whom this is still available are indigent persons( provided they have registered with the City as indigent). Thus, the Edina Court order could still assist persons living within the jurisdiction of other municipalities that offer free water, and to indigent persons in Johannesburg who are entitled to free water, but it can no longer be applied by non-indigent residents living in the City of Johannesburg.
Important caveat – take note!
Note, however, that the municipality would be entitled( if it so chose) to deliver the free water supply to the property in a manner other than through the pipes. For example, it could deliver bottled water to the property or fresh potable water using a water truck. Provided that the municipality continued to supply the free water that it has undertaken to, the disconnection of the main water supply through the existing water infrastructure( pipes) would then not be unlawful. u
|
innovations industry debate environment infrastructure municipalities |