Saving Water, But at What Cost to Independence?
Disability Rights Awareness Month | November 2026
Water conservation is everyone’s responsibility. As South Africa faces the possibility of renewed water stress, finding ways to use water more carefully is increasingly important.
We are encouraged to take shorter showers, use less water when bathing, collect water for reuse and avoid unnecessary waste. These are reasonable goals. But there is another question we need to ask:
How do we implement water conservation in ways that protect human independence, dignity and participation?
For people with disabilities, the answer may be more complicated than simply turning off a tap.
The difference between a solution and an accessible solution
A water-saving method may work well for one household but create difficulties for another.
Consider a simple example: collecting used water for reuse.
For some people, placing a container beneath a tap or shower is a straightforward task. For someone who uses a wheelchair, it may involve navigating a confined bathroom, reaching for a container, managing slippery surfaces and finding a safe way to move or empty it.
A full container of water is heavy. A container placed in the wrong position can obstruct movement or transfers. A task that appears simple on paper may introduce physical effort, risk or a need for assistance.
The water may have been saved. But has the solution considered the person who must carry out the task?
This is not an argument against collecting or reusing water. It is an argument for designing the process properly.
When saving resources creates another cost
We often measure the success of water conservation in litres saved, reduced consumption and financial savings.
These measures matter. However, they do not tell us the whole story.
What happens if a water-saving method takes considerably more time? What if it requires assistance from another person? What if it introduces safety risks or makes an everyday activity more difficult to manage independently?
Consider bathing.
A person may choose a basin bath to reduce water consumption. Yet this can involve preparing the basin and toiletries, managing water, washing, handling towels and cleaning the bathroom afterwards. For a person with a disability, these steps may require significant planning and physical effort.
Bathing is also not simply a matter of keeping clean. It can provide comfort, relaxation, privacy and an opportunity to manage an everyday activity independently.
If a conservation method makes bathing so demanding that a person sometimes avoids it altogether, we need to examine more than the volume of water used.
We need to consider whether the solution is practical, safe and sustainable for the person expected to use it.
A sustainable solution should not save natural resources by unnecessarily consuming human independence.
The implementation gap
Disability rights discussions often distinguish between having access to something and being able to participate meaningfully.
The same distinction applies to environmental solutions.
A water-saving product may be available for purchase, but can everyone use it? A government recommendation may be technically sound, but can people with different physical and sensory abilities follow it safely? A household reuse system may reduce water consumption, but who must maintain it, and what additional work does that create?
These are implementation questions.
They require us to look beyond whether a solution exists and ask whether it works in the circumstances in which people actually live.
For DeafBlind people, accessible information is also essential. Water restrictions, conservation advice and product instructions must be communicated in formats people can access and understand. People need to know not only what is recommended, but how to implement it safely and effectively.
Access to information is the starting point. The ability to act on that information is what makes it useful.
Can we design better solutions?
Instead of treating accessibility as something to consider after a water-saving intervention has been designed, we can include it from the beginning.
This means asking practical questions:
Can a person with limited mobility use the system without unsafe lifting, reaching or transferring?
Can a blind or DeafBlind person locate, operate and maintain it independently?
Does it create additional cleaning, maintenance or preparation tasks?
Does it require assistance that could otherwise be avoided?
Is the water being reused safely for its intended purpose?
Does the solution save enough water to justify its financial, environmental and human costs?
Have people with disabilities helped design and test the solution?
These questions can lead to better products, more accessible bathrooms, simpler collection systems and clearer instructions.
They can also encourage manufacturers to think differently. For example, could water-efficient bathing products and household cleaning products be designed with appropriate reuse systems in mind? Could collection systems be integrated into plumbing rather than requiring people to handle heavy containers? Could maintenance be reduced through better design?
Such possibilities need to be assessed for safety, effectiveness and affordability. Not every reuse method will be suitable for every household. Greywater, for example, can contain detergents, salts and microorganisms, so its suitability depends on the source, treatment and intended use.
The answer is not to reuse water indiscriminately. It is to develop solutions that are both environmentally responsible and practical for the people using them.
Nothing about us without us
People with disabilities are often expected to adapt to systems designed without their participation.
This is not limited to buildings, transport or digital technology. It also affects the way environmental policies and household solutions are developed.
When people with disabilities are involved from the beginning, they can identify barriers that may otherwise go unnoticed. Their experience can help developers and decision-makers understand the difference between a solution that looks effective and one that works in everyday life.
This is not about asking for lower environmental standards or exemption from shared responsibilities. It is about ensuring that everyone can contribute to meeting those responsibilities.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognises the importance of accessibility, independent living and participation. These principles are relevant when we design the everyday systems through which people access water, maintain their homes and manage their lives.
Nothing about us without us must apply to the implementation of solutions, not only to the writing of policies.
Measuring what matters
If we want to know whether a water conservation intervention is genuinely successful, we should measure more than the litres saved.
We should also consider the time required, the physical effort involved, the need for assistance, safety, affordability and the effect on a person’s ability to manage daily activities independently.
These factors do not replace environmental measurements. They complete the picture.
A solution that saves water while reducing unnecessary labour and improving independence may offer benefits that a simple water-use calculation cannot capture. Conversely, a solution that creates substantial new burdens may need to be redesigned.
This approach could improve water conservation for everyone, including older people, people with temporary injuries and households with limited time, money or physical resources.
Accessibility is not an additional luxury. It is part of making a solution work.
Beyond access: Participation in a sustainable future
Environmental sustainability and disability rights are not competing priorities. Both ask us to think about how we use resources, how we design our systems and how we protect the ability of people to live meaningful lives.
The challenge is to implement water conservation in ways that recognise both our responsibility to the environment and our responsibility to one another.
We should be able to save water without unnecessarily sacrificing privacy, dignity or independence. We should be able to develop innovative solutions without transferring hidden costs onto the people expected to use them.
And we should recognise disabled people not merely as recipients of environmental advice, but as people with knowledge and experience that can help make that advice more effective.
Perhaps the most useful question is not only, “How much water does this solution save?”
It is also:
“Does this solution enable people to participate more independently in everyday life, while using our shared resources responsibly?”
Because access is not the destination. Participation is.
And a sustainable future must be one in which everyone has the opportunity to participate in shaping it.