In 2006 the head of one the city's water departments told me new developments were placing a strain on the city's ageing W & S infrastructure, and, in his opinion, developers weren't adequately paying to connect. The DA-run city is pro-development. They say it contributes to economic development and city/province being an investment and tourist destination. (Yet CT lagged behind Jo'burg's and Tshwane's econ growth.)

Like other cities, CT supports development/industry/tourism because of the revenue it brings, but prefers not to think of the cost of natural resources until it's too late. And when it is, they blame ordinary households, not revenue generating industries/businesses, like now: 'residents watering gardens are responsible for low dam levels and high water consumption', to paraphrase Limberg earlier this year. BTW 500 000 tourists arrived at CT airport in December alone, excl those who drove. If each consumed ave. 280l/person, that's a lot of water