1.5 Water Security
17
practices. A more elaborate definition of water security notes that it ‘is a state of mind
based on context-specific (i.e. localised and individualised) perceptions and practices
held by individuals of water-related threats and/or opportunities and how it influences
them, their surroundings and their interactions with others’ (Meissner et al. 2018a:
112). This perception of water security gives us a bottom-up view of individuals,
other than engineers and policy practitioners, who play a central role in achieving
the aspirations of water security (Meissner 2016). Water security is not an end-goal,
but a strategic activity for achieving sustainable socio-economic development, as
well as psychological well-being. The idea of a green and ecological infrastructure
is part of achieving water security by means of an environment-centric governance
and management regime. The goal is for water security to find its expression at local
government level, where the South African Constitution (Act 108 of 1996) (RSA
1996) obliges municipalities to practice responsible water resources management
for the benefit of all its residents.
1.6 South African Municipalities and Water Resources
Management
Observers of municipalities consider these entities to be the sphere of government
that is closest to its citizens (Songer 1984; Zybrands 2011; Meissner 2015; Meissner
et al. 2018a, b, 2019). It is at local government level, therefore, that populations come
into direct contact with the state and its governing apparatus. Any policy, initiative,
regulation or decision taken at a local level has the potential to directly influence
people’s lives, for better or for worse (Meissner et al. 2018a). This is one of the
reasons why the South African Constitution (Act 108 of 1996) specifies that water
service provisioning and management are the responsibility of the local government
(RSA 1996; van Koppen and Schreiner 2014; Meissner 2015; Meissner et al. 2018b).
The Constitution provides the framework that divides the functions and powers
between the three governmental spheres (municipal, provincial and national) (de
Visser 2005). On this separation of functions and powers, Pieterse (2019: 55) notes
that: ‘[S]ection 156(1) of the Constitution determines that municipalities have “executive authority in respect of” and “the right to administer” functional areas listed in
Schedules 4B and 5B of the Constitution’. These Schedules ‘…relate to issues of
everyday urban operation (such as public works, storm water management, municipal roads and parking) and delivery of essential services (such as municipal health
services, water and sanitation services and municipal public transport), though also
extend to areas more determinative of life in the city (such as management of public
spaces) and to the cities’ developmental trajectory (such as municipal planning)’
(Pieterse 2019: 55).
Because of these functions and powers stipulated in the Constitution, du Plessis
(2010: 265) argues that, ‘Local government is no longer [particularly after the constitutional transformation of 1996] regarded as mere functionary or an agent of national
17
practices. A more elaborate definition of water security notes that it ‘is a state of mind
based on context-specific (i.e. localised and individualised) perceptions and practices
held by individuals of water-related threats and/or opportunities and how it influences
them, their surroundings and their interactions with others’ (Meissner et al. 2018a:
112). This perception of water security gives us a bottom-up view of individuals,
other than engineers and policy practitioners, who play a central role in achieving
the aspirations of water security (Meissner 2016). Water security is not an end-goal,
but a strategic activity for achieving sustainable socio-economic development, as
well as psychological well-being. The idea of a green and ecological infrastructure
is part of achieving water security by means of an environment-centric governance
and management regime. The goal is for water security to find its expression at local
government level, where the South African Constitution (Act 108 of 1996) (RSA
1996) obliges municipalities to practice responsible water resources management
for the benefit of all its residents.
1.6 South African Municipalities and Water Resources
Management
Observers of municipalities consider these entities to be the sphere of government
that is closest to its citizens (Songer 1984; Zybrands 2011; Meissner 2015; Meissner
et al. 2018a, b, 2019). It is at local government level, therefore, that populations come
into direct contact with the state and its governing apparatus. Any policy, initiative,
regulation or decision taken at a local level has the potential to directly influence
people’s lives, for better or for worse (Meissner et al. 2018a). This is one of the
reasons why the South African Constitution (Act 108 of 1996) specifies that water
service provisioning and management are the responsibility of the local government
(RSA 1996; van Koppen and Schreiner 2014; Meissner 2015; Meissner et al. 2018b).
The Constitution provides the framework that divides the functions and powers
between the three governmental spheres (municipal, provincial and national) (de
Visser 2005). On this separation of functions and powers, Pieterse (2019: 55) notes
that: ‘[S]ection 156(1) of the Constitution determines that municipalities have “executive authority in respect of” and “the right to administer” functional areas listed in
Schedules 4B and 5B of the Constitution’. These Schedules ‘…relate to issues of
everyday urban operation (such as public works, storm water management, municipal roads and parking) and delivery of essential services (such as municipal health
services, water and sanitation services and municipal public transport), though also
extend to areas more determinative of life in the city (such as management of public
spaces) and to the cities’ developmental trajectory (such as municipal planning)’
(Pieterse 2019: 55).
Because of these functions and powers stipulated in the Constitution, du Plessis
(2010: 265) argues that, ‘Local government is no longer [particularly after the constitutional transformation of 1996] regarded as mere functionary or an agent of national