[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l 2 water stories/LS
Mercury newspaper 5/7/00
___________________________________
UMGENI WATER STANDS FIRM ON 13%
Durban's water consumers - many of them already struggling to pay their
bills - will be slapped with a 13% increase because of Umgeni Water's
refusal to budge on its annual above inflation bulk water tariff hike.
The big jump for the Metro's consumers was passed by the council yesterday
after negotiations between Umgeni Water and local political leadership
failed to reduce the bulk supplier's own 13% increase.
Umgeni Water's inflexible stance has drawn harsh criticism and led to a call
for intervention from the National Ministry ....
...The increase will be an added burden on hundreds of metro consumers and
is almost certain to add to the council's rising water debts, which are
currently standing at R204 million.
Every month hundreds of disconnections are being effected because of the
growing number of consumers who cannot pay their bills ..."
Hereunder is a story that appeared in the Sunday Tribune concerning the
Manqele court case. It captures fairly accurately argument that was
presented in the High Court concerning whether Thulisile and her children
have any right to a basic water supply in the new South Africa.
Regards
Heinrich Bohmke
LET THERE BE WATER, SAYS LAWYER
A CASE THIS WEEK IN THE DURBAN HIGH COURT IS A MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL POSER TO
TEST EVERY SOUTH AFRICANS RIGHT TO BASIC AMENITIES.
An indigent Chatsworth mother who could not afford to pay an outstanding
R10000 water bill has challenged the government's authority to deny her the
basic right to water. Frail single mother Christina Manqele, who has seven
children, won her first battle against the Durban Metro Council in March
when it was forced to temporarily reconnect her water after cutting the
supply pending this week's court case.
Her counsel, advocate Maurice Pillemer SC, argued that the Water Services
Act took into account people's personal circumstances, and when the council
cut off her water supply, it acted unlawfully. She did not ask for an
unlimited or unrestricted water supply, he said, but the six kilolitres of
water granted free to users had also been stopped.
The Manqele case follows closely on the Grootboom case in Cape Town, which
is now at the Constitutional Court for determination on whether a group of
squatters with children is entitled to shelter in terms of the Constitution.
Manqele's case is a test case taken up by lawyers Chennells Albertyn &
Tanner who are hoping to determine the constitutional rights of other water
users whose supply has been disconnected.
It comes in the wake of the disconnection of more than 10000 Umlazi
residents whose water supply was stopped this week after non-payment.
Justice Vivien Niles-Duner heard the Manqele matter this week.
For the Council, Advocate Malcolm Wallis SC argued that since the
regulations in terms of the Water Services Act for a "basic water supply"
had not yet been drawn up by the National Ministry, the Council's hands were
tied.
Manqele's constitutional challenge, Pillemer argued, was that she had a
right to sufficient water and that her children had the right to adequate
nutrition which involved access to water. But, Pillemer said, in the
absence of promulgated water regulations, the Constitution provided for
"sufficient" water as the right of every citizen. "Sufficient water is more
than no water at all. As the Constitution is the supreme law of the land,
the concept of sufficient water has to be used in place of the absent
regulations to define a basic water supply".
In the aftermath of the constitutioal case of Durban man Thiagraj
Soobromoney two years ago, denied dialysis treatment because the state could
not afford to provide it, Pillemer conceded Manqele's own rights to water
may be limited.
UNWILLING
The Council submitted that just as the state had been unwilling to provide
medical treatment to Soobromoney, a refusal which cost him his life as a
result of financial constraints, the state could not be expected to supply
water to all who needed it. Wallis said the constitutional provisions
depended on the availablity of resources, placing no obligations on the
state and providing no unqualified guarantees.
Pillemer argued that since everyone in Durban was entitled to at least six
free kilolitres of water per month, in disconnecting Manqele's water, the
Council was denying a person who most needed access to such a free amount.
He said Manqele was prepared to use less than six kilolitres a month.
Judge Niles-Duner interjected from the bench to share her memories of the
water restrictions during the 1984 drought. She said consumers then were
expected to monitor their consumption, otherwise supply was cut off.
In the Durban Metro Council, Wallis argued, there were not sufficient
resources to police the use of the six free kilolitres, It was a difficult
choice to be made but the court also had to consider 8000 other households
which might want to have their water turned on.
For Manqele and her children, it was argued that to deny them access to
water because there were no means to ensure that only a basic supply was
consumed was but to reinvoke a limitation of rights where the Constitution
did not allow limitation in respect of the rights of children.
Bearing in mind the recent words of Mr Justice Arthur Chaskalson, that South
Africa was losing its way in looking after the poorest and most vulnerable,
it seems the ghost of Soobromoney still haunts us with the Manqele case.
Judgement has been reserved.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Lori Pottinger, Director, Southern Africa Program,
and Editor, World Rivers Review
International Rivers Network
1847 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, California 94703, USA
Tel. (510) 848 1155 Fax (510) 848 1008
http://www.irn.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::