By: Bongo Ntshangase

An explosion at a major bulk water facility in Gauteng earlier this year did more than interrupt supply. It exposed the deep structural weaknesses of a system under strain, ageing infrastructure, inconsistent maintenance, and growing demand that has long outpaced planning.

For residents and businesses, the consequences were immediate: dry taps, halted operations, and uncertainty that disrupted daily life and economic activity alike. This was not a theoretical systems failure it was a lived crisis.

But amid the disruption, something notable happened.

Government across national, provincial and local spheres responded with a level of coordination that has too often been absent in moments of pressure. Faced with an escalating emergency, the different spheres aligned decision-making, accelerated interventions, and avoided the familiar pattern of public blame-shifting that has characterised past crises.

Emergency regulatory flexibility allowed for increased water abstraction at a critical moment. The establishment of the Intergovernmental Water Operations Centre (War Room) and other coordination structures brought together key actors to streamline decisions. Municipal entities worked to stabilise distribution and maintain supply through tankering and operational adjustments. The result was not a perfect response, but it was a more coherent one than many would have expected.

And yet, this raises a harder question: why did it take a challenge to make the system work?

Gauteng’s water challenges are not new. They are the result of years of deferred maintenance, uneven investment, and fragmented planning across institutions that are meant to function as one system and non- revenue water losses, which refers to water that is not billed by the city, that includes unauthorised consumption or water lost due to leakages, and theft. 

According to research, nearly half of Gauteng water loses (49%) is non-revenue water. By comparison, countries like Denmark lose about 7%, while Chile loses around 32%. The recent water challenge did not create these problems it simply made them impossible to ignore.

However, consumption is equally concerning. According to water expert Craig Sheriden, Gauteng’s average water use is 279 litres per person per day, which is over 60% higher than the global average, 27% above the national average, and the highest of any province in South Africa.

Together, high losses and excessive consumption place significant and unsustainable pressure on an already fragile system and contributed significantly to the water challenge.

While improved coordination helped limit the immediate impact of the challenge, it does not absolve any sphere of government from accountability for the conditions that led to the crisis in the first place. Infrastructure does not fail overnight. Nor does institutional misalignment emerge suddenly. These are the outcomes of decisions budgetary, technical and political taken over time.

Encouragingly, there are signs of a more serious response taking shape. Infrastructure investment is being scaled up, including major upgrades to water systems across Gauteng’s metros. There is also growing recognition that water security is not just a service delivery issue, but a fundamental economic one affecting business continuity, investor confidence, and long-term growth.

But investment alone will not be enough. The real test is whether the urgency seen during the challenge can be institutionalised. Coordination cannot be reactive. It must be designed into how government operates through clearer accountability, integrated planning, and consistent oversight across all spheres.

This also requires a shift in political culture. When systems fail, the instinct to assign blame across institutions may be politically convenient, but it is operationally destructive. The challenge showed that when government focuses on shared responsibility rather than divided accountability, outcomes improve.

Gauteng’s water system remains under pressure. Population growth continues. Infrastructure backlogs persist. Climate variability will only intensify these risks. The next disruption is not a question of if, but when.

The real test now is to ensure that what worked under pressure becomes standard practice. Not because of crisis but in spite of it.

If the province can sustain the level of coordination demonstrated in its moment of strain, it will not only be better prepared for future shocks. It will begin to address the deeper challenge: building a water system and a state that works consistently, not just when it is forced to.