Frugality’s reward is . . . a surcharge?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. That is how Capetonians who have reduced their water consumption must regard the city’s plans to introduce a surcharge to cover revenue lost due to water-saving measures residents have implemented.

It reminds me of Eskom in 2008, begging middle-class South Africans to switch to energy-saving light bulbs and cut the use of pool pumps and electric appliances, and instructing big energyguzzling factories to shut production at the peak of the crisis and then keep some production lines closed.

Once the crisis was averted, Eskom discovered energy saving meant a shortfall in revenue. Big businesses had found alternative energy sources or were generating their own power from byproducts of their production. They were doing just fine, as were some middleclass homes that had installed solar panels — granted few homes are entirely off the grid, but they are no longer entirely at Eskom’s mercy.

This, combined with weak economic growth and new capacity the utility has brought on (and still is), means supply continues to outstrip demand.

Of course there is a whole raft of other problems at Eskom, from governance to irregular expenditure, to a leadership crisis, as well as substantial arrears, specifically by municipal customers.

Given the crisis at Eskom, let’s hope that in the Cape, money isn’t just being thrown at the problem, giving skelms the chance to skim off projects that are being urgently implemented to stave off day zero.

Eskom’s solution to deal with lower demand has been to hike tariffs and keep on trying to do so — the National Energy Regulator of South Africa has helped to curb its enthusiasm. Now it is close to the brink, and if it goes to the wall (which it just can’t) it could take the country with it.

Water issues may seem localised: a drought in 2015-16 in mostly the north of the country, and then more recently in the Cape. But the severe water shortages Cape residents have to cope with could become a recurring reality for more South Africans if no long-term plan is implemented. Cape Town residents face schedule 6 restrictions from January, meaning households will be limited to 10 500 litres a month. Businesses have to almost halve consumption and farmers cut use by 60%. And now a drought levy, which the city says is necessary to fund water augmentation programmes, will be implemented if the finance minister approves. It is a small surcharge, but once approved, who is to say the council won’t ratchet it up in the years ahead?

A friend has cut her family’s water bill from about R1 500 to R20 a month due to water-saving measures. Extrapolate that — even just half of that saving — across the city’s homes and that is a lot of lost revenue: the city’s estimate is R1.7-billion.

Like the warnings of severe power shortages made in the decade before the power crisis, there have long been warnings about a water crisis in South Africa — not only the supply of it but also the infrastructure to store and transport it.

South Africans and their government like to leave things to the last minute, the nailbiting deadline, edge-of-the-cliff kinda stuff. But can we get over the thrill-seeking now? It’s time to grow up and implement plans in advance.

Enslin-Payne is deputy editor, Business Times