Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 15 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-04-29 23:52:57 +02:00 | Mahommed | No I do not | Environmental Management & Pollution Control | ||
2026-04-29 11:37:49 +02:00 | Louise | Not fully | Restriction of Public Access & Criminalisation of Recreation | ||
2026-04-29 10:56:43 +02:00 | Karen | No I do not | Property Rights & 'Unbankable' Leases | As the state has failed with maintaining water infrastructure and services, why do they want more responsibilities and authority? | |
2026-04-29 09:35:41 +02:00 | Kerry | No I do not | Property Rights & 'Unbankable' Leases | ||
2026-04-29 07:31:29 +02:00 | Anke | No I do not | Restriction of Public Access & Criminalisation of Recreation | ||
2026-04-28 16:06:05 +02:00 | Helga | No I do not | All of the above | Property Rights & 'Unbankable' Leases | |
2026-04-28 13:33:32 +02:00 | Hendrik | No I do not | All of the above | Property Rights & 'Unbankable' Leases | As the state has failed with maintaining water infrastructure and services, why do they want more responsibilities and authority? |
2026-04-28 11:02:15 +02:00 | Marguerite | No I do not | All of the above | Restriction of Public Access & Criminalisation of Recreation | This is Draconian!! Stop shifting the onus!!! |
2026-04-28 11:02:14 +02:00 | Marguerite | No I do not | All of the above | Restriction of Public Access & Criminalisation of Recreation | This is Draconian!! Stop shifting the onus!!! |
2026-04-28 10:08:29 +02:00 | David | No I do not | All of the above | Property Rights & 'Unbankable' Leases | There are far more important issues related to water than those intended to implement by unhelpful, draconian legislation. As the state has failed with maintaining water infrastructure and services, why do they want more responsibilities and authority? |
2026-04-28 07:43:13 +02:00 | Ivan | Yes I do | All of the above | Restriction of Public Access & Criminalisation of Recreation | I do not agree with bill as it has negative in multi areas and does not build up the community. |
2026-04-27 16:42:21 +02:00 | Nic | No I do not | Restriction of Public Access & Criminalisation of Recreation | I believe the public right of access to all waterfront is sacrosanct. Happily, in South Africa, we have laws that hold that all ocean coastline is accessible to the public, except for the marine reserves such as the Tsitsikamma and De Hoop. Even where private property extends down to the coast, the public may access below the 50 year high water mark. In Hermanus a few years ago, I joined the Cliff Path Action Group. Through activism we suceeded in gaining a public right of way to a piece of coastline that was previously blocked off by private landowners. I believe that the public should have right of access to rivers and their banks, whether the river flows through private property or not. Similarly, I believe that dams, being mostly on rivers, are in fact part of a river, so there should always be public access to dams and their banks. Understandably, this access should always be subject to environmental preservation factors and to safety factors, but the majority of a dam’s shoreline should be publicly accessible. This has generally been the case in South Africa as far as I’ve experienced, with the exception of some of Cape Town’s water supply dams. I think that these new regulations will see a creeping privatisation of water frontage, something that I’m very opposed to. I think these regulations suit a rent seeking ANC government, bereft of new ideas for fiscal income. I can see the regulations allowing the concessioning out of dam shorelines to private operators, who would make the public pay to access or worse, create exclusivity and block the public. Our constitution gaurantees access to water for basic needs, to everyone, for free. On every municipal bill in sa, there is a free basic allocation before one starts paying on a sliding scale. We need air to breathe, we need water to drink, water is life... But we also need water for our spirituality, and water to recreate, to make us feel good and human. Many people go to water, any water body, to refresh themselves, to immerse themselves, and feel restored and whole again. Life of earth comes out of water, we are in water in the womb, thus the need for aquatic immersion is in us, part of us. To restrict our access to water bodies, whether natural or manmade, is anathema. We see all the time how the church groups in South Africa use water, on our beaches, at our dams, on our mountain streams, and even in our polluted rivers such as the Klip and Vaal in Gauteng. Imagine stopping people from going to a dam to baptise, stopping children from going fishing, adults from enjoying peace and reassuring rest next to water? | |
2026-04-27 11:59:59 +02:00 | Chris | No I do not | All of the above | Restriction of Public Access & Criminalisation of Recreation | |
2026-04-27 07:20:53 +02:00 | Dawie | No I do not | All of the above | Restriction of Public Access & Criminalisation of Recreation | |
2026-04-26 18:26:00 +02:00 | Albert | No I do not | All of the above | Local Economic Impact & Job Security | Too many regulations. We need job creation not more buracracy. Its only the regulation to manage the people but not the powerful. We need jobs. |
-
- Supporters of the regulations argue that the 1964 laws are outdated and that the new regulations will improve safety, protect the environment from invasive species, and ensure that dams are accessible to all South Africans, not just those with private shoreline access.
-
- Safety and Security: Standardised rules for boating, safety equipment, and incident reporting will make our dams safer for everyone.
- Environmental Protection: Mandatory “wash bays” and stricter controls will help prevent the spread of invasive plants and water pollution.
- Equity and Transformation: The policy aims to open up state-owned land for public picnic areas and community access, ensuring broader benefit.
- Formalisation: Replacing informal “handshake” agreements with formal leases ensures transparency and revenue for the state to maintain infrastructure.
-
- Supporters of the regulations argue that the 1964 laws are outdated and that the new regulations will improve safety, protect the environment from invasive species, and ensure that dams are accessible to all South Africans, not just those with private shoreline access.
-
- Opponents of the regulations argue that the policy is a form of “regulatory overreach” that threatens local economies. They are concerned that short-term leases will make properties “unbankable,” and that the state is attempting to criminalise traditional recreational activities that are currently protected under the National Water Act.
-
- Economic Risk: Capping leases at ~10 years with no automatic renewal prevents owners from securing 20-year bonds, potentially collapsing property values and tourism.
- Infringement of Rights: The regulations seek to treat recreational use as a “privilege” to be paid for, rather than a “right” as established in the National Water Act.
- De Facto Expropriation: Claiming control of private land below the flood line without compensation undermines the security of title deeds.
- Administrative Burden: Shifting the state’s job of monitoring and enforcement onto private clubs and citizens is an unfair and impractical burden.
-
- Opponents of the regulations argue that the policy is a form of “regulatory overreach” that threatens local economies. They are concerned that short-term leases will make properties “unbankable,” and that the state is attempting to criminalise traditional recreational activities that are currently protected under the National Water Act.