|
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 |