What money is already set aside for maintenance? The money for maintaining the water and electricity infrastructure was typically part of the price charged for those. When people cut down the amount available for maintenance goes down. In the case of electricity Eskom are the real problem. They're the ones that drove supply down and prices up.
The funny thing is that Stop COCT scored an own goal when they opposed the drought levy. They converted a temporary fee into a permanent charge.
Regardless if the administration is mostly appropriately using whatever money they get, then there isn't much point demanding fees be reduced, because the money has to come from somewhere. If a significant proportion of what gets paid is going to an ever-growing number of poor people gravitating to the city, then you need a solution to that problem.
so then what you are saying is, because the dams where empty, everyone had to cut down usage thus reducing the cut towards maintenance.
but now, the dams are overflowing, usage must go back up and the cut towards maintenance with it.
remove the levy. when it was implemented most people said it will not be removed and it was promised it would.
claiming global warming and the unpredictability of the weather as reasons to keep the levy as stated by the da, is ridiculous. these problems are not new and is part reason for building dams and planning of water supply etc.. to claim it is going towards creating solutions for the possibility of a similar drought in the future, but then using it to pay the bills of the ever growing number of poor people is also a load of nonsense and dishonest, especially when it was shown how these areas continued to waste water during the drought crises. why would someone care for preserving something if they just keep getting more for nothing.
keeping these things in place motivates people to use their own water more, driving municipal water usage down further.