Facts
- Six Bedouin citizens residing in unrecognized (unplanned and unauthorized) Negev villages sought private, household connections to the national water network near Mekorot pipelines, each acting for dozens of families.
- The state generally supplied water to residents of unrecognized villages through (1) water purchase points (“water centers”) near recognized localities and (2) exceptional private connections recommended on humanitarian grounds by a special drinking-water allocation committee.
- The Water Commissioner denied the requested private connections for the relevant communities.
- The applicants challenged the denial before the Water Tribunal (Haifa District Court sitting in water matters), which upheld the Commissioner’s decision.
- The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court of Israel sitting as a civil appellate court.
Issues
- Whether access to drinking water sufficient for a minimal, dignified existence is protected as a constitutional/basic right.
- Whether the State must provide private household water connections to residents of unrecognized/unauthorized villages, as opposed to alternative delivery methods.
- Whether and how the illegal/unrecognized status of the place of residence may be considered in the water authority’s exercise of discretion under administrative law standards of reasonableness and proportionality.
Decision
- The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Water Tribunal’s decision upholding the Water Commissioner’s refusal to approve the requested private household connections.
- The Court held that access to water sufficient for a minimal, dignified existence is a constitutional right derived from human dignity, supported by statutory law and informed by international human rights materials.
- The Court held that the State’s obligation is to ensure minimum practical access to sufficient drinking water, not necessarily to provide household connections in every location.
- The Court found the challenged policy—water centers plus exceptional humanitarian private connections—fell within reasonableness and proportionality, even if it imposed cost and inconvenience on residents.
- The Court held the authority could take account of the unrecognized/unauthorized status of the settlements when deciding whether to add private connections, while still ensuring a minimum water supply.
Legal Principles
- A constitutional right to water exists to the extent necessary to secure a minimal existence in dignity; the State must ensure access that meets this minimum.
- The right’s protected core concerns sufficient quantity and adequate quality for basic needs; delivery modality (household connection versus other access points) is subject to governmental discretion and balancing.
- Administrative decisions concerning water provision are reviewed for reasonableness and proportionality; courts may uphold policies that meet the minimum constitutional threshold while reflecting planning and land-use considerations.
- Unauthorized status of a settlement may be a relevant factor in infrastructure decisions, but it does not extinguish residents’ entitlement to minimum access to drinking water.
Conclusion
The court constitutionalized a minimum right to water tied to human dignity, yet upheld a policy that denied routine household hookups in unrecognized Negev villages where the State provided alternative access and humanitarian exceptions, deeming the arrangement proportionate and reasonable in light of planning and enforcement interests.