Examining the efficacy of the legal framework governing the management of greywater in South Africa's informal settlements

The reuse of greywater is a practice that is common amongst all classes of people in South Africa to supplement irrigation water, either in urban gardens in middle- to upper-income suburbs or in food gardens in lower-income informal, peri-urban and rural areas (Rodda et al. 2011). However, many informal settlement residents still perceive greywater as waste or unwanted water that is dirty and must be discarded (WRC 2017). A study by Prins et al. (2022) found that greywater was the least acceptable option amongst users compared to rainwater and stormwater. In addition, user perception in that study changed and resulted in increased use of greywater due to access to information. User perceptions on greywater management is therefore key to addressing water scarcity (Prins et al. 2022). Bischoff-Mattson et al. (2020) on the other hand found that distinct viewpoints about the causes of water scarcity differentiated amongst the water practitioners. Additionally, South Africa faces challenges with respect to fragmented institutional structures and basic services backlogs (Kok & Collinson 2006; Turton, 2008; Fisher-Jeffes et al. 2012).

Due to the increasing demand of greywater use and safety concerns surrounding it, the South African legislators have formulated the SANS 1732:201x standards on greywater use and management with an emphasis on food security and environmental protection. Policies are the basis of governance and the WHO Guidelines recognize public health, environmental protection and food security (WHO 2013) as the main policy issues that requires investigation. Winter et al. (2011) argue that greywater traverses through all these policy issues and there is a need to facilitate its management and establish the responsibilities and rights of different stakeholders. The development of a greywater policy helps to set national development priorities and provide decision-making criteria to guide the development process towards achieving them. This article aims to review the existing greywater legislative framework of South Africa. In particular, the research objectives were firstly to conduct an empirical review of the efficacy of the legislative framework (the Water Services Act of 1997 and the SANS 1732:201x of 2019 framework; SANS 2019) in assisting officials to govern the management of greywater in South Africa's urban informal settlements and secondly to investigate if there is a policy basis in South Africa for non-treatment interventions of greywater by water service authorities in South Africa's informal settlements. The last objective was to assess the state of cooperative governance between municipalities and national government institutions responsible for the management of greywater. Greywater is defined and characterised in the following section of this study under literature review.

The National Buildings Regulations of 2011 is a national standard that provides engineering guidelines for the installation of water services infrastructure in households. Whereas, the National Water Act of 1998, Policy on Free Water of 2001 and the National Water Resource Strategy of 2004 are laws and policies which deal with bulk and potable water supply geared to meet the human rights enshrined in section 24 and 27 of the Constitution.

The right of access to basic water supply and basic sanitation for every inhabitant of South Africa is accorded by the Water Services Act (1997). The WSA recognizes that in order to ensure sufficient water and an environment that is not harmful to health or well-being, rights to access water services are necessary. Section 1 (ii) defines basic sanitation as ‘the prescribed minimum standard of services necessary for the safe, hygiene and adequate collection, removal, disposal or purification of human excreta, domestic waste-water and sewage from households, including informal households.’ This section gives a mandate to water service institutions to manage greywater in both formal and informal settlements. The WSA is intended to provide for the rights of access to basic water supply and basic sanitation and a regulatory framework for water services institutions and water services intermediaries.

The SANS 1732:201x was developed to provide guidance on the harvesting, storage and the safe reuse of greywater at a household level. The standard according to s (1) (1.1) is primarily for ‘single re-use of greywater for subsurface irrigation of gardens and the treatment of greywater for flushing toilets.’ Section (1) (1.2) of the standard provides the minimum requirements for the development of a greywater system that includes design, installation, operation, maintenance, repair and monitoring. Furthermore, s (3) (3.1) (a) (1) of the standard takes into consideration ‘structures that are both of a permanent and temporary nature irrespective of the materials used in the erection thereof in connection with the accommodation of human beings.’ Informal settlements are thus included in this definition since they are temporary structures made of diverse buildings. The standard further alludes to informal settlements and places these under Class H3 according to the standards. Class H3 is defined as ‘a domestic residence that consists of two or more dwelling units on a single site.’

The Municipal Systems Act of 2000 defines by-laws as legislation passed by the council of a municipality to regulate the affairs and the services it provides within its area of jurisdiction. Section 21 of the Water Services Act of 1997 sets minimum requirements of what the municipal by-law must be comprised of, namely s21 (1)(a) ‘standard of services’ s21(1)(b) ‘technical conditions of supply’ s21 (1)(c) ‘the installation, alteration, operation, protection and inspection of water services works and consumer installations.’ These legislative requirements apply in the context of potable water supply and sanitation services. Despite the significant wastewater legislative developments made by the South African government since 1997, municipalities still struggle to make corresponding greywater by-laws, implement the mandate of water service provision and to manage greywater nuisances in informal settlements.

The City of Cape Town metropolitan municipality has a greywater by-law in place which provides guidelines on the authorisation process for greywater reuse and the installation of a greywater system. In the Eastern Cape, both the Nelson Mandela and Buffalo City metropolitan municipalities have greywater by-laws in place. Buffalo City municipality by-laws similar to the City of Cape Town specify the authorisation process for greywater reuse and installation of a greywater system. The Nelson Mandela metropolitan municipality greywater by-laws on the other hand have provisions which only specify the authorisation process for reuse. The metropolitan municipalities of the City of Mangaung in the Free State, Tshwane City, City of Johannesburg, Ekurhuleni in Gauteng and EThekwini City in Kwa-Zulu Natal do not have any greywater by-laws in place.

Sanitation services as defined in s1(ii) of the WSA of 1997 ‘make provision for the safe and hygienic management of greywater in informal settlements.’ The first limiting aspect of the WSA is that it does not distinguish between greywater and blackwater but treats greywater as one with sewage s1(xvi). The WSA as a result does not mandate the development of a greywater system separate from the sewerage system but treats all domestic wastewater as the same. In addition, the WSA also does not make any provision for the on-site treatment and reuse of domestic wastewater but mandates its collection and removal to offsite wastewater treatment works. Particularly, the WSA mandates the development and installation of a sewerage system and makes no mention of a greywater system.

The second aspect of the WSA is the limitation of rights. Section 3(1) of the WSA affords every person in South Africa ‘the right of access to basic water supply and basic sanitation.’ The provision of these rights is however conditional and hinges on the institutional capacity of the municipality to meet these requirements. If a municipality is unable to meet the requirements of all its consumers, section 5 of the WSA then mandates the institution to ‘prioritise the provision of basic water supply and basic sanitation’. Basic sanitation consists of the removal of domestic wastewater (including greywater) from both formal and informal households according to the WSA. In other words, pit latrines, bucket systems and chemical toilets are examples of what a basic sanitation service constitutes. In reality, some municipalities rely on chemical toilets which end up being a permanent sanitation solution. This article argues that the development of greywater removal systems in informal settlements should be categorised as a first priority by urban municipalities due to the health risks that ponding greywater poses for the residents.

The other limiting factor of the Water Services Act is that it exempts municipalities from delivering water services to places that are deemed environmentally unsuitable. According to s21 (2)(a) a Water Service Authority ‘may place limits on the areas to which water services will be provided according to the nature, topography, zoning and situation of the land in question.’ These required conditions automatically discriminate against informal settlements. The character of informal settlements in the urban centres is generally one of overcrowding and lack of spatial planning. Some informal settlements are built on floodplains, stormwater ponds, wetlands and steep terrains that are not suitable for the development of a sanitation system or repurposing of greywater for agricultural use. The suitability of the land where some of the informal settlements are erected therefore limits the implementation of the greywater standards.

The implementation of the SANS 1732:201 relies heavily on the political will and priorities of the municipal council in place. The tenure of local government municipal councils in South Africa according to local government policy is limited to a 5-year term and is subject to periodic changes. The periodic changes in municipal council political leadership possibly translate to varying water service delivery priorities. The role of municipal councils is to allocate and approve budgets for water service infrastructural development and maintenance. According to COGTA (2015) the implementation of water and sanitation development services is hampered by poor financing of municipalities by national government. The implementation of greywater programs in informal settlements is affected by these structural complications. In other words, the development of greywater infrastructure in informal settlements might not take precedence in metropolitan municipalities since there is an existing sanitation, housing and water supply backlog with a limited budget. The implementation of the SANS 1732:201 standards in informal settlements will also require a rigorous monitoring program by the municipality to ensure its compliance. This exercise will necessitate the allocation and channelling of resources towards a greywater program in informal settlements from the already debilitated water and sanitation budgets.

The status of access to improved sanitation in South Africa is another limitation of the SANS 1732:201x standard for greywater reuse in informal settlements. The Department of Water & Sanitation (2015) identifies six infrastructural levels of sanitation services such as bucket toilets, Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine (VIP), waterborne sanitation, septic tanks, soak-aways and urine diversion toilets. StatsSA (2018) data show that households' access to drinking water is at 89% whilst access to sanitation sits at 83%. A large share of the informal settlement dwellers relies on unimproved sanitation facilities which are public toilets that are used by more than one household. This can either be a waterborne onsite facility, pit latrine without slab, chemical toilet or bucket latrine (Department of Water and Sanitation 2016). The limiting aspect of the SANS 1732:201x standards is that the greywater reuse guide is suitable and easy to implement in households which have access to waterborne sanitation. Informal settlements which rely on pit latrines and chemical toilets for sanitation services which make use of the bucketing method of disposal have limited guidance on how to manage greywater nuisances. Section 5 of the standards which deals with the installation of a greywater system is limited to waterborne sanitation and cannot be used for pit latrines and chemical toilets. The implementation of section 5 of the standard as a result requires municipal officials to fast track the removal of the bucket system, pit latrines and chemical toilets in informal settlements so that priority may be placed on the harvesting and onsite treatment of greywater for non potable use.

Each household produces two types of wastewater, namely blackwater and greywater (Al-Hamaiedeh & Bino 2016; Al-Jayyousi 2017; Van de Walle et al. 2023). The definition of greywater and its usage varies in different parts of the world. This is due to the fact that in some parts of the world greywater is often combined with blackwater in a single domestic wastewater stream (Perumpully et al. 2023). Ideally greywater should be separated from blackwater, channelled into the stormwater network, treated and reused. According to Nolde (1999) and Gholami et al. (2023) the term ‘greywater’ refers to untreated household wastewater, which has not been contaminated by toilet waste. It includes the water from bathtubs, showers, hand basins, laundry tubs, floor wastes, washing machines, and kitchen sinks (Table 1). WHO (2006) also defines greywater as untreated household wastewater that has not come into contact with sewage (or ‘blackwater’). According to DWA (2013), conventional waterborne sanitation (that uses freshwater to wash away human faeces) is not an efficient system in a context where fresh water is scarce and precious and where fertiliser inputs for agriculture productivity are limiting.

The physical characteristics of greywater are measured in terms of their temperature and suspended solids index. According to Morel & Diener (2006) the greywater temperature is often higher than that of the water supply and varies within a range of 18–30 °C. These high temperatures are attributed to the use of warm water for personal hygiene and discharge of cooking water. The chemical parameters used to determine the chemical constituents of greywater are pH, alkalinity, electrical conductivity, sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), biological and chemical oxygen demand (BOD, COD), nutrient content (nitrogen, phosphorus), heavy metals, disinfectants, bleach, surfactants or organic pollutants in detergents. The principal sources of greywater are laundry, kitchen sink, dishwasher, shower & bath water and hand basin water (Van de Walle et al. 2023).

The specifications of these sources of greywater as listed in Table 1 are important as they provide information about the potential levels of contamination of that greywater. It is worth noting that the sources of domestic wastewater are determined by the socio-economic rudiments of the various households. For example, informal settlement households generally do not have any showers or kitchen sinks but make use of hand basins for multi-purposed household duties. Greywater generated from household activities is generally disposed of into a nearby stormwater network or flushed in a public toilet facility.

The term ‘informal settlement’ is interchangeably used with terms such as ‘slums,’ ‘flavelas’ or ‘squatter camps’ and the meaning varies from country to country. The United Nations (2003), however, provides guidelines to help define these areas. An informal settlement according to United Nations (2003) has the following characteristics (a) lack of basic services (b) substandard housing or illegal inadequate building structures (c) overcrowding and high density (d) unhealthy living conditions and hazardous locations (e) insecure tenure; irregular and informal settlements (f) poverty and social exclusion (g) minimum settlement size (h) inadequate access to safe water (i) inadequate access to sanitation and other infrastructure (j) poor structural quality of housing (k) overcrowding (l) insecure residential status. This characterization of informal settlements by the UN (2003) helps local governments to develop an operational definition and also render the required services to informal settlements (HDA 2013). Informal settlements in the urban areas of South Africa are largely characterised by the lack of infrastructure to convey greywater to nearby wastewater treatment works (Winter et al. 2011). Serviced informal settlements usually have a pipe network which conveys wastewater from public sinks and toilets to the sewer system. Unserviced informal settlements usually have no piped sanitation system in place, instead residents rely on chemical toilets, pit latrines and bucket toilets. The traditional greywater disposal method in informal settlements is bucketing. Bucketing in informal settlements is done in 3 ways: (1) onto the ground outside shack dwellings (2) at a nearby stormwater system or (3) flushed at a public toilet facility. When greywater is disposed of outside the shack dwellings it usually ponds and causes health and environmental concerns. In order to mitigate the situation, Carden et al. (2007) describes how residents of some non-sewered informal settlements have agreed to carry all greywater to nearby stormwater infrastructure to prevent ponding around shacks and restrict breeding areas for mosquitoes and flies. It is worth noting that greywater investigations in South Africa are primarily inspired by water shortages and not so much by the management of greywater nuisances in informal settlements.

The World Health Organisation is a United Nations agency that connects nations, partners and people to promote health and serve the vulnerable communities (WHO 2022). As the global custodian of public health, WHO has consequently developed guidelines on the use of greywater, excreta and wastewater in order to provide a consistent level of health protection in different settings. The first edition of the guidelines was published in 1973, followed by the 1989 second edition. The 1973 WHO edition, entitled ‘The reuse of effluents: Methods of wastewater treatment and health standards’ are guidelines for the reuse of domestic wastewater for agricultural, recreational, industrial, economic and municipal purposes. The guideline further highlights the potential health effects associated with the direct or indirect use of wastewater. It is worth noting that the guideline does not distinguish blackwater from greywater but treats all domestic wastewater as the same. In addition, the guideline advocates the establishment of central government agencies with a legislative mandate for pollution control, water supply and health. The National Department of Water and Sanitation, Department of Health, Municipalities and the various water boards are examples of such agencies that the South African government has established to manage its wastewater affairs. The second edition of 1989 are ‘Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture.’ The subsequent third edition of the guidelines was published in 2006 which is split into three volumes focusing on the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater in agriculture. The four volumes have the following focus areas;

• Volume 1: Policy and regulatory aspects

• Volume 2: Wastewater use in agriculture

• Volume 3: Wastewater and excreta use in aquaculture

The 3rd edition is the first guideline to clearly distinguish blackwater from greywater reuse. The present third edition of the guidelines has been updated based on new health evidence, expanded to better reach key target audiences and reoriented to reflect contemporary thinking on risk management. Moreover, the guidelines were updated to take into account scientific evidence concerning pathogens, chemicals and other factors, including changes in population characteristics, changes in sanitation practices, better methods for evaluating risk, social/equity issues and sociocultural practices. Of interest in this project is to examine how South Africa's greywater policy measures up to these international guidelines for greywater reuse.

The Australian government has taken a lead from the World Health Organisation by being one of the first countries in the world to develop guidelines for the management of greywater as a means to compensate for freshwater shortages. Approximately 55% of all the households in Australia use greywater with the majority actively participating in water saving activities (ABS 2007). Prodanovic et al. (2019) found that green wall systems can play a beneficial role towards the on-site treatment of greywater in the Melbourne area. According to Noman et al. (2022) approximately 9% of the global greywater studies were conducted in Australia and USA. Greywater use in Australia is regulated by a variety of state and territory government environmental, health and water authorities (NWC 2008). The Australian government has developed numerous national and state codes, standards and guidelines that relate to the installation of greywater diversion devices, greywater irrigation systems and greywater treatment systems (Noman et al. 2022).

New Zealand, similarly to Australia, has made greywater investigation a national issue. Greywater investigations and reuse in New Zealand are driven by water conservation and the benefit of reduced demand on wastewater reticulation and treatment systems, at both a municipal and household level. Nationally applicable policy, legislation or guidelines for greywater reuse are lacking in New Zealand (Zaayman 2014), instead regional legislations takes precedence similarly to Australia. Although there is no national regulation for greywater reuse in New Zealand, the diversion and reuse of greywater remain popular amongst the residents. For example, the current legislation of the Kapiti Coast District Council proposes the use of diverted greywater for subsurface irrigation of land, and restricts the use of greywater for irrigation to the property from which it originated (Kapiti Coast District Council 2017). The Kapiti Coast District, Central Otago, and Nelson are the drier regions of New Zealand and thus the search for alternative sources of water and reuse of greywater is indispensable in these regions.

The United States of America (USA) does not have a federal legislative framework for greywater use, instead there are state based legislations developed by various states. Non-government organisations (NGO) like the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) have developed onsite greywater treatment and reuse standards that the various States can use as a benchmark for the management of greywater. Since 2011 ANSI and NSF developed a set of three standards, namely, ANSI/NSF 40, ANSI/NSF 245 and ANSI/NSF 350 which provide guidelines on greywater treatment system installation for commercial and residential uses. ANSI/NSF 350 is the latest standard which deals with the non-potable uses of greywater for toilet flushing and irrigation.

Moreover, the State of California, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Maine and Ohio are examples of states that have developed their own greywater guidelines. The greywater guidelines in California give home owners license to reuse greywater and to install a diversion system. The code specifies that the diversion system must be designed and installed to prevent greywater from mixing with potable water and to direct it back to the sewer line. Moreover, the local building department is given authority to inspect the greywater system (California Plumbing Code 2016). In the state of Arizona, the use and installation of greywater systems is permissible but uses are restricted only for irrigation and toilet flushing (Arizona Administrative Code 2022). The state of Texas allows the reuse of greywater for irrigation, agricultural and domestic purposes such as toilet and urinal flushing. The standard requires users to acquire permits for the domestic use of greywater for quantities that exceed 400 gallons (Texas Health and Safety Code, 2021). In Alabama, the law requires greywater operators to install filters and disinfect the water before reuse (Alabama Administrative Code 2022). The state of Maine also issues permits for the installation of greywater systems and guides residents to first treat greywater before disposal (Clean Water Act 33; Maine subsurface wastewater disposal rules; ANSI/NSF Standard 350). In Ohio, the non-potable use of greywater is also permitted for landscaping and irrigation purposes (Ohio Administrative Code 2015).

Kenya is an east African developing country with dense informal settlement clusters. The local municipal authorities of Kenya struggle to supply urban communities with freshwater due to low water reserves and rainfall patterns. As a result, 89% of informal settlement dwellers make use of shallow wells as a source for domestic water and less than 10% of residents receive tap water from the local municipalities (Kimani-Murage & Ngindu 2007). The non-potable use of greywater is consequently a common practice in Kenya's informal settlements. In Nairobi specifically, 50% of the greywater generated in 2006–2007 was used for irrigation purposes. Despite the common reuse of greywater amongst residents, the national government of Kenya regards its reuse as illegal. Kenya has no national wastewater reuse policy in place, but instead the government has developed a 2030 vision which includes the conservation of water sources, rainwater harvesting and the use of groundwater (Nyika & Dinka 2023).

Water demand is a global phenomenon that affects every country and Brazil has consequently faced successive water scarcities in recent years (Targa & Batista 2015). At the same time Brazil has a high informal settlement population where greywater management is a major problem. Greywater investigations and policy development in Brazil are also influenced by freshwater scarcities and wastewater related disease risks in urban informal settlement communities. The non-potable use of greywater for small scale agricultural purposes has been investigated in higher water deficit regions of Brazil (Santiago et al. 2015). The Brazil government has consequently developed the Association of Technical Standards – NBR 13.969/97 which is a national benchmark for the reuse and management of greywater. The standard makes provision for the recirculation of rinse water from washer (laundry use) with or without treatment for toilet flushing. The limitation of the national legislation is that it does not include concepts, classifications and quality standards which ensure the reuse of water for different destinations, with safety necessary for humans, animals and the environment (Moura et al. 2019). Subservient to the national standard on greywater reuse, local states have developed legislative guidelines for the management of wastewater. The following are examples of states that have developed legislations for greywater use in Brazil;

• Rio de Janeiro (Law No. 7424/2016, Law No. 7599 24/2017),

• Espírito Santo (Law No. 10,487/2016),

• São Paulo (Law No. 16174/2015, Law No. 16,160/2015),

• Ceará (Law No. 16,033/2016),

• Bahia (Resolution No. 75/2010),

• Paraná (Law No. 11,552/2012) and

• Rio Grande do Sul (Law No. 6616/2006)

Brazil, similar to South Africa, is a developing country with a dense informal settlements network. Greywater policy in both countries requires revision to reduce greywater nuisances and the risks of waterborne disease outbreaks in informal settlements.

The state of Queensland in Australia has developed greywater management guidelines specifically for non sewered settlements which are the equivalents of South Africa's informal settlements. The Queensland strategy allows for greywater to be used in garden watering, wetland maintenance, irrigation of recreational areas and toilet flushing provided there is minimal contact with people. There are several significant other pieces of legislation which control greywater nuisances in non sewered settlements. Section 87(1) of the Health Act 1937 for example requires that greywater disposed of in an non sewered area ‘must not be allowed to remain in any one place for more than 24 hours after a local government has given notice to remove it.’ Greywater is also not allowed to run-off from any premises or cause offensive odours. Section 87(2) requires the ‘local government to control any problem which may arise under Section 87(1) (11).’ The guidelines from Queensland in Appendix 1 Table A.1 deal with discharge procedures, handling and reuse of greywater, installation of greywater treatment, maintenance, monitoring and evaluation.

The SANS 1732 standards of South Africa are primarily for single re-use of greywater for subsurface irrigation of gardens and the treatment of greywater for flushing toilets according to Section 1 (1.1). Section (3) (3.1) (a) (1) of the standard takes into consideration greywater reuse systems for informal settlements. The standard provides guidelines on two reuse systems to be employed, namely, direct capture (bucketing) and diversion, storage and treatment systems. Informal settlements without a waterborne sewer infrastructure rely solely on the bucketing system to dispose of greywater. In addition, the diversion, storage and treatment system has yet to be employed in South Africa's urban informal settlements. Lastly effective comparison of greywater guidelines and policies between the various countries is affected by the lack of synergy of water quality parameters each country uses and the categorisation of reuse options specified in the guidelines (Capodaglio 2021; Van de Walle et al. 2023).

A systematic review was used to search relevant legislations, policies, regulations and published research on greywater management specifically focusing on urban informal settlements in South Africa and abroad. This comprehensive review searched a total of seven open-access databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, ScieLo, Mendeley, Google Scholar, Springer and Elsevier) for literature published between (2001) and (2022). The search word used was/were: greywater legislative framework, informal settlements, slums, non sewered settlements, aimed at the title or abstract of the article. Descriptive statistics (including graphs and pie charts) were employed in analysis of the data. Outcomes were reviewed against the alignment with the SANS 1732:201x standards of 2019 and the Water Services Act of 1997.

The second sample group at a provincial government level are water boards. The water boards were selected on the basis that they are classified as water service institutions and mandated by the Water Services Act of 1997 to supply bulk water and sanitation services to the municipality. Water boards that responded to the research include participants from Joburg Water in Gauteng and Overberg Water in the Western Cape. The third sample group is at national government level and is made up of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) and the National Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). Input was requested from the national department of COGTA due to the department's mandate of ensuring that there is synergy and cooperative governance between municipalities, water boards and national departments. The national Department of Water and Sanitation was selected since it's the custodian of all bulk freshwater, wastewater systems and infrastructure in South Africa. The National Water Act of 1998 additionally bestows upon DWS the oversight prerogative over all the lower structure water service institutions such as metropolitan municipalities and water boards. A total of 17 participants from across the institutions could be reached to participate in the study.

The questionnaire had a total of 29 questions which are classed into 9 categories (Appendix B and Table A.2). The respondents were given another option of completing the softcopy version of the questionnaire which is in a Microsoft Word format. Should the interviewee opt for this second option they were requested to use a yellow highlighter to tick in the box when answering multiple choice questions. The survey covered a period of 2 years between the years 2020 and 2022.

The SANS 1732:201 standards for greywater use and management underwent the same process of public engagement before being passed as a legal imperative. The Municipal Systems Act prescribes the incorporation of existing policies into the municipality's integrated development plan (IDP). The integrated development plan of the municipality according to section 25(1)(a) ‘links, integrates and coordinates plans and takes into account the proposals for the development of the municipality. The plan also forms the policy framework and general basis on which annual budgets must be based’ (section 25(1)(c)). The integrated development plan also reflects the assessment and identification of communities which do not have access to basic municipal services (section 26(b). The municipal IDP is a document that is readily available for the community to access either through the municipality's website or handouts. A Water Research Commission funded study by Carden et al. (2007) collated previous greywater investigations in order to develop guidelines for the use of greywater. The findings of the study were published, circulated to municipal officials in the human settlements, engineering, water and sanitation divisions for input. The study gave impetus to the development of SANS 1732:201 a year later.

Before the SANS 1732:201 standard was published, it also underwent a period of public scrutiny where the comments of the public were taken into consideration including the opinions of officials working in the water and sanitation field. Lack of awareness of greywater policy by officials is unjustified since the development followed standard practice of stakeholder engagement.

Disposal and ponding is the greatest greywater challenge that officials are aware of in informal settlements. The remaining 35% of the interviewees had no idea about any greywater challenges in informal settlements. The results confirm the findings by Carden et al. (2007) that greywater ponding around shacks is the leading cause of greywater challenges in informal settlements. In addition, the 35% margin of the interviewees that showed no knowledge of greywater challenges point toward lack of education and cross sectional flow of information within government institutions. Carden et al. (2007) further propose that greywater management solutions are likely to be effective in the informal settlement if dwellers are informed and consulted in the development of these greywater management solutions. From the greywater challenges listed by the officials there is no indication of the current legislation as a possible challenge. In other words, the officials do not regard the presence or clarity of legislation as a challenge.

In conclusion, this paper underscores the critical need for a coherent and robust legal framework to support responsible greywater management in South Africa's informal settlements. By addressing regulatory gaps, encouraging community engagement, and fostering innovative practices, the legal framework can play a pivotal role in advancing water security, sanitation, and sustainable development in these vulnerable communities. The paper's insights contribute to the ongoing discourse on water governance, shedding light on the pathways toward a more sustainable and equitable water future.

This work was funded by the Cape Peninsula University of Technology Research Fund (URF).

Babalo Vala: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Visualisation, Writing. Ntokozo Malaza: Project administration, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. Thandekile Khamushinda: Software, Data Analysis. Piwo-Kuhle Dalasile: Data analysis. Michael Aupaki Melato: Data Analysis. Hilton Scholtz: Visualization.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.