Water tariffs: Jhb metro accepts 65,6% increase without disclosing important information
Despite AfriForum’s repeated requests for information explaining how a 65,6% increase in Johannesburg’s water demand management levy was calculated, the Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality adopted the increase as part of its 2026/27 budget on 27 May. According to the organisation, the public participation process was thereby reduced to a mere formality because residents were expected to comment on the increase without any available information to assess its rationality.
AfriForum maintains that the Metro’s approval of the increase demonstrates a complete disregard for meaningful public participation and transparent governance. This, despite its persistent failure to provide any methodology, supporting data, cost analysis, clarification or rationale for the increase. Meanwhile, AfriForum’s legal team yesterday formally demanded that the Metro provide a full substantive response to the organisation’s requests by Friday 5 June. Should the Metro fail to do so, the organisation will approach the High Court on an urgent basis.
“The Metro has repeatedly referred to infrastructure maintenance, service reliability and long-term sustainability. Those are legitimate objectives. However, the public participation process requires more than broad statements of intent. Residents must be given sufficient information to evaluate why this specific increase was chosen, how it was calculated and whether a 65,6% increase is a necessary and reasonable step to achieve those objectives. The Metro nevertheless proceeded to approve the increase,” says Marais de Vaal, AfriForum’s Advisor for Environmental Affairs.
The Metro’s own tariff documents merely state that the levy is a fixed monthly charge intended to cover network costs and the cost of base water installations. However, neither the approved budget nor the supporting tariff documentation provides any explanation for why the levy for domestic consumers must increase from R65,08 to R107,74 per month, representing an increase of 65,6%.
AfriForum first requested this information during the public participation process after identifying the proposed increase in the draft budget. The Metro ignored the request and instead instructed the organisation to submit a formal application in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA). AfriForum argues that requiring residents to bring a PAIA application to obtain information needed for budget comments undermines the Municipality’s statutory obligation to facilitate meaningful public participation.
“It is a legal impossibility to invite meaningful public comment on a tariff increase while withholding the information needed to understand and evaluate that increase. Residents cannot be expected to participate in a budgeting process blindfolded,” says De Vaal.
The water demand management levy represents one of the Metro’s major revenue streams, likely to generate well over R1 billion annually. Yet neither the approved budget nor the supporting tariff documentation identifies how much revenue the levy is expected to generate or how the additional revenue arising from the increase will be allocated.
“Nobody disputes that Johannesburg’s water infrastructure requires investment and maintenance. The Metro has repeatedly invoked those objectives, but it has still not explained why they require a 65,6% increase rather than 10%, 20% or 40%. Without that explanation, residents are simply expected to accept the increase on trust. That is not how accountable government works,” concludes De Vaal.
