Engineers or water specialists account for just 21% of non-executive directors across seven water boards, raising questions about whether those charged with safeguarding the country’s ageing bulk water infrastructure possess the technical know-how as taps run dry.
The key water boards are tasked with providing bulk water and sanitation services, managing dams, and supporting municipalities.
Research by Business Day found that only 16 of the 78 non-executives hold engineering qualifications, including those who are water specialists, and even when executive directors are counted, engineers average just three seats on a 12-member board. In one striking example, the Vaal Central Water has a non-executive director with a theology qualification.
All appointments are signed off by the cabinet.
The technical expertise on the boards has come into the spotlight as taps countrywide run dry, forcing President Cyril Ramaphosa to establish a water crisis committee, which he chairs, charged with deploying technical experts and resources to municipalities facing water challenges.
Responding to Business Day questions, the department of water & sanitation said technical and engineering expertise is an important consideration in appointing people to serve on the boards of water boards, particularly given their infrastructure-intensive nature.
“However, board members are appointed primarily to provide strategic oversight and governance, not to perform operational or technical functions,” the department said.
“Operational and technical expertise resides within the executive management structures of water boards, including the CEO, engineering divisions, and technical professionals employed by the entity.
While engineering skills are “valuable and necessary within the overall composition, it is not a requirement that the majority of board members be engineers. What is essential is that the board, as a collective, has sufficient technical insight to interrogate infrastructure plans, capital programmes, and maintenance strategies effectively.”
That defence may not satisfy critics who point to turnarounds in other state-owned entities where technical competence at the board level was deliberately prioritised. Eskom’s operational recovery, frequently cited inside government and industry circles, coincided with a board in which seven out of the 11 non-executive members brought technical backgrounds in engineering, nuclear and environmental fields, subject matters key to the power producer’s operations.
Sekadi Phayane-Shakhane, CEO of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering (SAICE), said governance without engineering competence becomes compliance driven rather than assurance driven.
“Oversight of water infrastructure is not a generic governance function; it is an engineering responsibility with direct implications for public health, economic stability and constitutional rights related to access to water.
“Engineering judgment is required to prioritise upgrades based on risk exposure, redundancy requirements and system vulnerability modelling. In the absence of technical expertise, capital expenditure may be driven by short-term affordability or political pressure rather than engineering risk mitigation.”
Engineering judgment is required to prioritise upgrades based on risk exposure, redundancy requirements and system vulnerability modelling.
— Sekadi Phayane-Shakhane, CEO of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering
Rand Water in Gauteng, Umgeni Water in KwaZulu-Natal and Overberg Water in the Western Cape are the three largest water boards.
The latest findings by the auditor-general revealed systemic failures across the water value chain, posing serious risks to public health, environmental sustainability and service delivery.
Some of the damning findings include near-total failure of wastewater treatment plants, with 99% failing at least one quality standard; delayed infrastructure projects, averaging 32 months; and widespread maintenance neglect.
South Africa is said to need about R400bn to address the maintenance backlog of water and sanitation infrastructure in the country’s worst-performing municipalities, of which 105 are considered critical or poor in the Blue, Green, and No Drop audit reports of municipal drinking water and wastewater systems.
Chris Roth, SAICE president, said that when technical skills run short in boards, contractor management is compromised.
“Effective oversight requires the ability to interrogate technical designs, validate specifications, assess workmanship quality, and confirm compliance with applicable contractual standards,” Roth said.
“Without in-house engineering expertise, institutions cannot adequately supervise external service providers and provide contract management. This increases the risk of poor workmanship, cost overruns, and long-term performance failures.”
SAICE said some capacity challenges facing the sector are that engineering capacity is disproportionately concentrated in metropolitan areas and the private sector.
Rural municipalities and smaller water boards are underresourced as they struggle to attract and retain experienced professionals.
“Organisational instability, political pressure, and administrative burdens discourage senior engineers from long-term public sector roles. This results in high vacancies or frequent turnover in technical leadership positions,” Roth said.
“A significant cohort of senior engineers with decades of institutional knowledge is reaching retirement age. Structured succession planning and formal mentorship pipelines are not consistently implemented across institutions to transfer knowledge to emerging professionals.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.